[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Linux vs. Microsoft
On Tue, 15 Oct 1996 09:23:45 +0200 (GMT+0200), you wrote:
>
>()
>()if the X was as powerful as the MS-Windows 32bit OS linux will be better
>()then Microsft
>()
>()
>
> X is more powerfull then MS - WINDOWS .
Hi,
As a person who has been making most of his living from X programming,
I am sorry to have to say that you are (unfortunately) wrong.
There are many things to be said for and against X, but one elementary feature
of X
makes X inferior in performance to windowing systems that are built into
the OS (s.a. MS Windows, Mac OS ...).
Any introductory book on X will explain that X is a NETWORK BASED, CLIENT-
SERVER modeled, window system. This is usually described as an advantage.
It probably was 10 years ago, when computer economics were different, and it
made sense to buy a lot of X terminals and connect them to powerful servers.
Today, it does not make sense anymore.
You pay a big performance price for this architecture with all its layers for
communication.
Running an application on one machine with the UI on another may seem cool,
but c'mon, how many people really need it? Today most users run their
application and their server on the same CPU, and not only do they not take
advantage of this expensive feature, but they also pay extra overhead when their
application process and the X server process have to context switch between
them.
Client-server models make a lot of sense when the Databases should reside in
a central computer. It does not make sense to split the GUI computations between
different machines.
Note, there are so called DirectX libraries that replace Xlib, and deal directly
with the display hardware (no X server). This is a solution that keeps legacy X
applications running, but not really on X.
I suggest you read
"How to make a 50-MIPS Workstation Run Like a 4.77MHz IBM PC"
at http://ecco.bsee.swin.edu.au/unix/uh/x-windows.html.
(Yes, its from the "Unix Haters Handbook", please don't flame)
It is written humorously, but there is a lot of truth there.
See especially the chapter 'Myth: X Demonstrates the Power of Client/Server
Computing'
>
> it is more configurable,
True, X apps (especially those using Xt like Motif apps)
are very configurable. But how many people really use
all that power (to change the appearance of individual widgets within an app.),
hardly anyone.
>it is much more easy to program ...
I have heavy experience programming in different X toolkits
and also with different Windows tools.
YOU ARE DEAD WRONG, (and this is even when Unix is much more familiar
as it is in my case).
X Gui building tools are nowhere near the RAD and IDE products that
exist for Windows.
The only simple programming tool for X, is Tcl/Tk, but that cannot
really be considered an X tool (only historically).
> and guess what ?
>
>
> IT DOESNT HAVE TO RUN ON A - PC computer ... LIKE MS-WINDOWS 95 , .
> can you display an application output thru 95 on a diffrent terminal ?
1) As I said above, how many need this feature
2) Are you sure there is no product around that does that?
> can you change your WM in w95 ?
Of course. You don't call it a WM but you can get 3rd party products
that replace the standard desktop.
> can you configure the menues in 95 ?
Many application allow you to do that when it is reasonable, and have
a GUI for it.
How many users play around with X resources to change a menu?
You see, X is loaded with features that are not very useful.
> do you have a virtual desktop in 95 ?
Of course. For example the Starfish Dashboard. (There is also a Starfish
Dashboard for WIndows 3.11 (originally "HP dashboard").
Note, virtual desktops are not part of W95, the same as virtual desktop
WMs are not part of X.
>
> with all respect - X is much much better then this M$(%*#&@t code errors .
>
What can I say, I wish you were right, but we have to face reality.
Bye
--------
Moshe Cohen -- Software Development and Consultancy
17/10 Akiva St., Raanana 43260, Israel.
Tel: 972-9-989404. Fax: 972-9-420432.
Email: moshec@netvision.net.il URL: http://www.dezines.com/moshec/
Follow-Ups:
References: