[LUAU] Intel Doubles Down on Linux

[Jim Thompson]

On Jul 26, 2005, at 2:08 AM, Jimen Ching wrote:



> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005, Jim Thompson wrote:
>
>
>
>> My complaint was directed at X, not its applications.
>>
>> The reason I prefer a Mac is that I don't have to fsck with it to
>> have it work.
>>
>>
>>
>
> This was why I asserted that your complaints were against X  
> applications
> and not X in general, or more specifically the X protocol.  Though  
> I do
> recognize that the X protocol isn't perfect.  My point was, when  
> people
> say 'X sucks', they usually mean 'X applications' suck or the 'X  
> server
> configuration' sucks.
>

These things do suck, but they can be (some would say 'are being')  
fixed.


> Because users don't usually interface with the X
> protocol or server directly.  So, unless you're a developer on the  
> X team,
> when you say you need to 'fsck with it', I don't think you mean the X
> protocol or the server, right?
>
>

As I related, I've dealt with the X11 protocol at a very low level  
(turning protocol operations into
bits on the screen.)

Many things around X11 are imperfect.  The toolkits are, at least  
until recently, pretty lame.  The latency used to just
be annoying, but now the delta between a "local' (accelerated)  
application and a remote one is huge.  (Which begs the
"network oriented" issue.)   There are many things about Windows and  
"Quartz" that are annoying as well.  GUIs (and the technology
that drives them) are hard.

However, the protocol,  the thing that defines X11, unfortunately, is  
broken for many interesting imaging applications.   This was really  
in response to Wayne's cheerleading on X.org's recent moves.  If X is  
to survive, I'm afraid we'll need X12 (a protocol rev) built around  
new graphics primitives.

But back to software and its difficulty for a moment.  Getting  
significant software written and working borders on a form of  
masochism, an almost glee in pushing oneself to polish it optically  
flat even when you're way past sick to death of looking at it. Even  
total cr*p software is hard to build.

In college I was friendly with a design professor, as in ergonomics  
and all that. But he was really a ceramicist, a fairly well-known
artist (hell he got thousands for his cookie jars, etc.)

If you worked with him throwing pots etc and thought you'd gotten  
pretty good he'd tell you to go down to Woolworth's and buy some
laughable junk, bobble-heads or ash-trays from Florida with  
alligators, $5 ceramic lamps, etc. And try to duplicate them exactly
in the ceramics shop, and then try to make a few more all exactly  
alike and see how hard it was to turn out $1.99 junk that was
even worth $1.99. Take my word for it: It was difficult!

Building software isn't all that different.


> As for your other email about the X protocol's support for color  
> and rendering; my only comment is that the base protocol and  
> philosophy has been around for a while and is still around.  This  
> tells me X did something right, even if it isn't perfect.
>

Sure.. things that are static can survive for quite a while.  The VAX  
was around for a long time too (1978 - 1992).   Some have speculated  
that the reason why the VAX was used as the benchmark for computer  
performance was that it hardly changed.  That a "VAX MIP" was a  
constant, like an electron volt or something.  VMS is still with us  
(both in the form of OpenVMS as well as Windows NT/2K/XP/'Vista'.)

It could be that what "X" did right was the non-technical stuff.  It  
was free to license, and aligned most of the Unix industry except Sun
around a common technology.  These are both essentially "marketing".


> As you mentioned, even Mac's have 'bad apples' (pun intended) once  
> in a while.
>

Ya, Apple has nearly lost it several times, but they do seem able to  
do the "course correction" thing.  68000 -> PowerPC,  OS9 to OSX, and  
now PowerPC to Intel.

>
>
>>> Unfortunately for X and Linux, these systems aren't as anal about  
>>> UI guides.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> X never had a "UI Guide".
>>
>> There are themes for Windows and MacOS as well.
>>
>> You are aware that variety can be bad for you, right?
>>
>>
>
> Odd, I swore I said I agree with you on these points.  Yet, you  
> insist on
> disagreeing.  Oh well...
>
> Though I didn't go as far as saying choice is bad.  I prefer the terms
> 'pro' and 'con'.
>
>

Choice is good.  Too much choice can be bad.



>
>
>
>>> I don't understand why people need to point out that Unix and X  
>>> are 30
>>> year old technology.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Did I say anything about the age of Unix (which is over 30) or "The X
>> Window System" (which at most is now 20 years old)?
>>
>>
>>
>
> Well, unless your name is James 'People' Thompson, I'm pretty sure I
> wasn't talking about you specifically.
>
>

OK, but you were responding to my message.



>
>
>
>> They do, especially when discussing electric cars, powered by fuel
>> cells, batteries or even (plug in) hybrids.
>>
>>
>>
>
> You sure have a knack for missing the point, or at least  
> misunderstanding
> it.
>
>

I thought I was providing counter examples.

Which point(s?) did I miss?