Re: problems installing xquartz
Re: problems installing xquartz
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 10:19:13AM +0100, Lars-Johan Liman wrote:
> email@hidden:
> > My point is that, as user interfaces go, X11 is pretty sucky. (There are
> > very good reasons why there's a big push for Wayland.) Especially on OS X,
> > I'm usually much happier using the native GUI; and on Linux the GUI
> > experience just feels cobbled together --- which it is, because X11
> > is.
>
> I would argue that X11 is not a user interface - it's a network
> transparent framwork for displaying graphics on screens which may not be
> directly connected to the piece of equipment you're sitting at.
Excellent point, as the UI for X11 depends entirely on the window
manager, which is not forced by X11---it is 100% up to the USER what wm
they use, and thus, what the UI looks like and how it performs. Sorry,
but you can't blame X11 for its UI. Blame the window managers that you
don't like, and pick one that you do like. If you don't like any of
them, and if you know how (I don't, but then, I found window managers
that I really like), write your own and release it to the X11 world. You
might make the next "best ever" window manager. :-)
> On top of that framework, a number of user interfaces have been built
> over the years - some more successful than others. The list is long:
> Motif, DECWindows, Openlook, CDE, KDE, Gnome{1,2,3}, Xquartz, ...
My all-time favorite is ctwm. Simple, but when you dig into its menus,
multiple virtual desktops (or workspaces, if you prefer), it's clean and
easy to use, and provides the power to enhance it. Motif, IMHO, has
always looked "ugly" ... and except for Xquartz on this Mac, I've never
run the others, so I can't comment on them. The SunOS wm, however, I
have used...and quickly replaced with ctwm..... :-) But again, the
point I believe we're both trying to make is that the user is free to
find the wm that works best for THEM.
> There are some advantages with X11 that I like and have not seen
> elsewhere:
[trimming these to a few words each for brevity]
> 1) It's network transparent.
>
> 2) You can build your own UI.
[if you know how or plan to learn]
> 3) Configuration flexibility.
> 4) It's open source. That means a lot to me.
Strongly agreed on all four.
> I see two major drawbacks, which you may ascribe higher importance than
> I do:
>
> 1) Performance. There is no way X11 can compete with a graphics system
> that talks directly to your turbo-mega-super graphics board. If
> you're doing video/games/computation visualization/CAD/... then X11
> is not your solution.
Generally true. But this is all a function of the X server itself.
I have seen cases---sorry, can't provide the details---where a good
X server built for the hardware and the right software can perform
extremely well.
Later,
--jim
--
THE SCORE: ME: 2 CANCER: 0
73 DE N5IAL (/4) | "This 'telephone' has too many
email@hidden | shortcomings to be seriously considered
< Running Mac OS X Lion > | as a means of communication. The device
ICBM / Hurricane: | is inherently of no value to us."
30.44406N 86.59909W | (Western Union internal memo, 1876)
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
X11-users mailing list (email@hidden)
This email sent to email@hidden