> 1) Writing a full scale graphical environment is time > consuming, difficult, and requires a lot of skill. There are > not that many around. The Mac interface, Windows, Sun's > SunView, X and X based derivatives (CDE, Gnome, KDE, etc.). > Probably a couple of others, certainly the Star interface was > used by Apple and MS for ideas, etc. X started as an > academic project and then was adopted by the *NIX world as > the basis for a lot of variants, but the hard work was all > done at MIT and everyone leveraged off that investment. The > basic point is that a full blown interface is something that > will probably be done only as an academic project or if there > is substantial value for selling the interface. Hence the > OpenSource world has moved towards the end of leveraging off > the X stuff as the basis for GUI's and trying to lay stuff on > top of that to enhance the user experience. This has the > side-effect of making it easy for programmers to write > applications for the interface; any Xlib application can be > ported to any X environment; it looks better if some higher > level widgets are used, but it makes the application level > much more enticing to developers. Cost of a non-X interface > and the problem of getting apps for it both argue against > such a beast.
Excuse me, but by my understanding X itself is not a UI. It is just a Server that doesn't really do much but draw a window. If you start X without a windowserver it is pretty fast and looks extremely ugly. > In the end, my take is we do not need to replace X, just > optimize what is there. I don't think the problem is X itself, I think the problem is in what people try to do with it. More optimization on behalf of GNOME and KDE will most likely work better than trying to re-invent the X Server. By my understanding (and I am not a programmer) X is actually pretty small for what it is doing. Michael -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
