[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Linux vs. Microsoft
(If anyone objects to this discussion on this list, please write me (directly),
If there are many objections I will stop)
Hi Eddie,
On Tue, 15 Oct 1996 11:20:17 +0200 (GMT+0200), you wrote:
>______________________________
>Eddie harari - unix dep.
>Software Education LAbs - SELA
>______________________________
>Meseg sent at Tue Oct 15 11:20:17 GMT+0200 1996
>X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Length: 3263
>
>()On Tue, 15 Oct 1996 09:23:45 +0200 (GMT+0200), you wrote:
>()
>()> X is more powerfull then MS - WINDOWS .
>()
>()
>()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.
>
>This is where you are Wrong ...
>________________________________
>
>thae independent protocol is not just to use with terminals
>it is to share an app output between arch's .
Sorry, I do not understand what you mean here.
>
>
>()Today, it does not make sense anymore.
>
> Yes it does . for you it doesnt , but for others it does ...
Let me rephrase: it makes sense for a smaller and smaller
percentage of the users (sometimes for me too), so that it
does not make economic sense to give up performance for the vast majority.
The vast majority of X users are X users because that is the standard
on Unix stations, not because they looked for the distributed features.
>
>()
>()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.
>
> Not true again - There are many org's need this options of configuring and building their own enviroment.
Usually users do not need the full power of configurability.
Look, I agree its a good feature (although there is administration overhead,
most users do not know how to use it anyway); it is just that in response to
your using it as an argument for X against Windows, I am saying that it is
not such a big deal for most users.
Again, I must stress MOST. I am sure there are some who use it extensively
(me too, sometimes).
>
>
>()X Gui building tools are nowhere near the RAD and IDE products that
>()exist for Windows.
>
> there are good tools ... for gui building , but you should get use to them ...
> UIMX and stuff ...
I know UIMX and it cannot be compared to the Windows development tools
in developer productivity. I found it useful only for starting out prototypes.
I learned UIMX after I knew Motif well, so I grasped it relatively
easily. I saw, though, talented people with no Motif experience try
to learn UIMX - they had to turn to the basic Motif books first.
E.g:
They all ask the question "why can't I drop more than one widget to a Shell?".
A very reasonable question for someone trying to use a Gui Builder that
is supposed to make life easy for you.
>
>()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
>
> a feature exsist so if you need it , you use it .
> you dont make things , 100% for your needs - you make it so people who needs
> this feature will use it .
I am trying not to repeat myself, but this is the essence
of our argument. This feature has a price. Those needing it
should pay the price, but MOST X users today do not need it
and they have to pay a performance price for a basic feature
that they do not need.
>
>()2) Are you sure there is no product around that does that?
>
> but then you pay the price ... ( it is like an emulator ) .
Exactly as in X (price I mean, not emulator) BUT only users that need it pay.
>
>()
>()> 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?
>
> I know about 100 -
Is that supposed to be a big number?
> I give X administration courses ...
> and there is a demand to that courses ...
I'm glad you mentioned that. Why should people have to actually take
courses for X administration. After all, it not an OS, it is just a
Window system. It shouldn't have the complexity of an OS.
From my experience, I also spent an unreasonable amount of time
explaining to people how to configure resources on apps. I wrote.
At first I naively told people (when asked about configurability)-
"no problem, you can simply change it yourself with a resource file".
At the end, nobody had time to do it properly, and I hardcoded
their preferences through the fallbacks.
But again, I have nothing against this feature, it is just not
considered by a me an important advantage.
>
>()> 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").
>
> first you say that all this cost preformance , then you ignore the preformance
> things cost in the MS-windows ...
You are mistaken. I mentioned the performance issue regarding the
networking layers and client-server model of X.
This example was to counter your impression that in the X world
there are some great technology not found elsewhere.
>
>()>
>()> 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
>
> never wish , make it true ... ( isnt that what linux is all about ???).
>
Hey, Linux and X are two completely different issues.
The X server is just another 3rd party process, as far as the Linux
(or other OS) kernel is concerned.
Os'es that control the GUI more directly can gain performance
(although they have other disadvantages).
I do not know you but it seems to me you have the same misconceptions
I had not so long ago, when all my experience was Unix/X. I was very
surprised when I got to know the "other world", in some issues very badly
surprised and in some surprised for good.
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: