[lkml]   [2003]   [Sep]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Can't X be elemenated?
Definitely, having the kernel support the GUI features is bad idea IMHO.
but, What X lacks is a _standard_ toolkit, _complete_ widgetset for developers.
We have
acrobat using Motif distributed along with the reader, xfig "needing"
preinstalled Motif, Xaw using Athena, Gnome apps using gtk, KDE apps using
QT... and so on. Moreover, there is no standard interface for
communication between these apps using myriad toolkits. And all of this is
a duplication of effort that can be totally avoided.

As an app programmer, one is always faced with the question, "which
toolkit do I use?". And there is never an easy answer. I guess its high
time for ppl to realize this. If any thing, this is definitely one thing
thats slowing down the acceptance of Linux as a Desktop OS.


On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Paul Jakma wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, kartikey bhatt wrote:
> > 1st. X is bloat.
> This isnt true.
> [paul@fogarty paul]$ cat /proc/`pidof X`/status | grep ^Vm
> VmSize: 47700 kB
> VmLck: 0 kB
> VmRSS: 22580 kB
> VmData: 25540 kB
> VmStk: 72 kB
> VmExe: 1488 kB
> VmLib: 1580 kB
> X is actually quite tiny, ~3MB of exe+lib. The data size is due,
> vastly, to the X /clients/ using the server (in the above case RH9
> GNOME + windowmaker + xchat2 + galeon + few xterms).
> Here's Xipaq (tinyX handheld X server):
> ~ $ cat /proc/`pidof Xipaq`/status | grep ^Vm
> VmSize: 5072 kB
> VmLck: 0 kB
> VmRSS: 3164 kB
> VmData: 1788 kB
> VmStk: 16 kB
> VmExe: 848 kB
> VmLib: 2028 kB
> That's Xipaq, exe is smaller, but libs are bigger, balances out to
> ~3MB again. However, the data segment is much smaller, < 2MB compared
> to > 25MB for the desktop case. The handheld runs the GPE
> ( environment.
> So perhaps you could come to the conclusion that 'X' (in the X server
> sense) is not bloat, but that the /clients/ on modern desktops are?
> > Though it's good for server environments. For desktop pcs it's too
> > heavy.
> You are misinformed. See above.
> > 2nd. It's process based client/server architecture is a bottleneck.
> Why do you think so? For large amounts of data, X clients can use
> shared memory. Further, even if they must transfer data (ie
> pixmaps/pics) across the socket connection, the X server can cache
> it, and the client can use it by reference. (ie a once off cost).
> Also, local X clients use unix sockets - blazingly fast.
> > It's not as interactive as is supposed to be.
> Have you tried 2.6.0-test6? The interactivity problems were the
> kernel's fault more than that of 'X'.
> > 3rd. Most important. I can't impress or convince my
> > window(crash)(TM) user friends, relatives (who saw X running on my
> > pc) to use Linux.
> You wont impress /anyone/ with "just X" (ie just the X server) -
> cause all you'll get is a tiled background of tiny X logos and an X
> mouse pointer.
> > 4th. I want to see desktop being ruled by Linux.
> "X" isnt the obstacle.
> To be able to constructively criticise something you first need to
> /understand/ it. You dont.
> Most of you what you complain about, bloat and heavyness, is due to
> the desktop environment - not X itself. Try running GPE
> ( or (easier/actually practical too for a
> desktop) Xfce (
> Finally, this isnt a kernel problem.
> regards,
> --
> Paul Jakma Key ID: 64A2FF6A
> warning: do not ever send email to
> Fortune:
> Real wealth can only increase.
> -- R. Buckminster Fuller
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to
> More majordomo info at
> Please read the FAQ at

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:49    [W:0.182 / U:2.036 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site