LinuxQuestions.org
Latest LQ Deal: Linux Power User Bundle
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Other *NIX Forums > *BSD
User Name
Password
*BSD This forum is for the discussion of all BSD variants.
FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 08-01-2017, 06:00 AM   #61
Xeratul
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2006
Location: UNIX
Distribution: FreeBSD
Posts: 2,357

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 211Reputation: 211Reputation: 211

Quote:
Originally Posted by jggimi View Post
Motif is different, because there is commercial support (ICS) tied to this OSS project. A quick look shows that the project last had a release in March of 2017 (2.3.7) on sf.net but ICS -- who operate the official project website -- is marketing version 2.3.5.
It let me think that the root of X11 is highly important for BSD and UNIX systems.
If X11 is no longer there, UNIX principle is likely to change and be altered.

This ICS is not good. Yeah you're right. It is terrible graphical libraries under BSD.

Well, maybe OpenMotif is luckily now available, and it is very easy to compile: see here
The library can be compiled easily and it works on many operating systems.
However, drawbacks: many.

The problem is that people are programming using libraries, that will very probably change and it'll result in compiling errors.

Besides, it let me think about C programming... If I learn a programming language, it takes me at least 10-15 years (I am relatively slow). When I know to use it, then, the library is no longer there. SDL 1.2 is not moved to 2.x because all applications will no longer works. Same for X11. Since everyone based their work on X11, they'll loose years of developments. Why C became so popular? - Because of its portability and programming convenience. Let's joke a bit... Maybe we should also do the same for TeX / Latex / ncurses / termcap / signal.h / stdio ... for fun? lol

Last edited by Xeratul; 08-01-2017 at 06:11 AM.
 
Old 08-01-2017, 09:14 AM   #62
Luridis
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2014
Location: Texas
Distribution: LFS 8.0 Custom, Merged Usr, Linux 4.9.35
Posts: 472

Rep: Reputation: 114Reputation: 114
There is so much malarkey in this thread. X11 does not adhere to "The Unix Philosophy". It has never followed The Unix Philosophy. X11 has always been a poor design. In the words of an X11 developer (maintainer)...

https://youtu.be/GWQh_DmDLKQ?t=13m7s

https://youtu.be/GWQh_DmDLKQ?t=18m33s

https://youtu.be/GWQh_DmDLKQ?t=20m55s

https://youtu.be/GWQh_DmDLKQ?t=22m34s

And the crème de la crème...

https://youtu.be/GWQh_DmDLKQ?t=27m47s
 
Old 08-01-2017, 09:19 AM   #63
Xeratul
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2006
Location: UNIX
Distribution: FreeBSD
Posts: 2,357

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 211Reputation: 211Reputation: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luridis View Post
There is so much malarkey in this thread. X11 does not adhere to "The Unix Philosophy". It has never followed The Unix Philosophy. X11 has always been a poor design. In the words of an X11 developer (maintainer)...

https://youtu.be/GWQh_DmDLKQ?t=13m7s

https://youtu.be/GWQh_DmDLKQ?t=18m33s

https://youtu.be/GWQh_DmDLKQ?t=20m55s

https://youtu.be/GWQh_DmDLKQ?t=22m34s

And the crème de la crème...

https://youtu.be/GWQh_DmDLKQ?t=27m47s
The problem is the development of X11 which did not strictly follow Unix programming rules. Wayland is for perfs and for gamers. Besides, probably, you don't want to game all your day? It is also sponsored by GNOME and they have commercial interests. Wayland is not good because it will replace X11. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zsz7Shbnb9c (Similar story like SystemD that replaces SystemV, but who cares really?)

Devs is made to give freedom of choice for their users, not to tight them forever. It is all about YOUR freedom.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	99557-stallman.jpg
Views:	9
Size:	25.6 KB
ID:	25629  

Last edited by Xeratul; 08-01-2017 at 09:37 AM.
 
Old 08-01-2017, 09:36 AM   #64
Luridis
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2014
Location: Texas
Distribution: LFS 8.0 Custom, Merged Usr, Linux 4.9.35
Posts: 472

Rep: Reputation: 114Reputation: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xeratul View Post
Click image for larger version

Name:	Not-listening-Gollum.jpg
Views:	13
Size:	16.1 KB
ID:	25630
Pretty much sums it up...

Oh, and most of the BSD's are sponsored by "Commercial Interests". So, I guess BSD is bad too...

Last edited by Luridis; 08-01-2017 at 09:37 AM.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-01-2017, 11:22 AM   #65
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,967
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 1006Reputation: 1006Reputation: 1006Reputation: 1006Reputation: 1006Reputation: 1006Reputation: 1006Reputation: 1006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luridis View Post
Oh, and most of the BSD's are sponsored by "Commercial Interests". So, I guess BSD is bad too...
The individual BSD projects receive donations, both from individuals and commercial.

FreeBSD: https://www.freebsdfoundation.org/donors/

OpenBSD: http://www.openbsdfoundation.org/contributors.html

NetBSD: https://netbsd.org/donations/

Not quite the same as "commercial interests" and not "sponsorship", e.g. in Linux land where there are donations, developers on the payroll, sponsored projects and corporate reps on the board of directors.

And X.org foundation board is similar... hence the sudden need to trash X11 and start anew. While X11 is far from perfect, we can't say for sure that whatever replaces it will be "better". We can hope for several competing implementations, but that seems a vain hope at this stage...

Last edited by cynwulf; 08-01-2017 at 11:25 AM.
 
Old 08-01-2017, 03:10 PM   #66
Luridis
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2014
Location: Texas
Distribution: LFS 8.0 Custom, Merged Usr, Linux 4.9.35
Posts: 472

Rep: Reputation: 114Reputation: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
The individual BSD projects receive donations, both from individuals and commercial.

FreeBSD: https://www.freebsdfoundation.org/donors/

OpenBSD: http://www.openbsdfoundation.org/contributors.html

NetBSD: https://netbsd.org/donations/

Not quite the same as "commercial interests" and not "sponsorship", e.g. in Linux land where there are donations, developers on the payroll, sponsored projects and corporate reps on the board of directors.

And X.org foundation board is similar... hence the sudden need to trash X11 and start anew. While X11 is far from perfect, we can't say for sure that whatever replaces it will be "better". We can hope for several competing implementations, but that seems a vain hope at this stage...
And the fact that any application can listen to input all the time? How about that any application can pretend to be the user and scrape other windows for personal data? So, x is exempted from principal of least privilege? Why does rubbish software get a waiver?

It's design is poor. It has always been poor. There are research papers as far back as 1990 that explain this. The Unix Haters Handbook dedicated a whole chapter of it. After using at least 5 GUIs before trying X, I concluded that it was a horror. Even the Apple IIgs had a less flaky GUI and it was a bad clone of what ran on the original Macintosh.

Old != Unix Philosophy
Works != Unix Philosophy
I_Don't_Like_Change != Unix Philosophy
I_like_the_appearance_of_30-year-old_GUI's != Unix Philosophy

If it's that good, why hasn't its wonderful, beautifully designed IPC been ported to non-x applications? Everybody that I've read that actually works on X or something that uses it, hates X like early developers hated the Playstation 3. They curse at X11 and call it names like it's mangy, ill-tempered stray.

I've spent 20 years wondering why its tolerated and I have no answers. Bad things are typically replaced at some point, yet this dogpile carries on like a stubborn cold.

It's horrid software... let it pass. If it's missing something you want, besides a really bad RPC implementation, then why not try to get that implemented? Sitting here linking pictures of archaic GUIs and whining because you think they're going to go away won't solve a thing.

Next, someone is going to complain that Wayland won't be available on floppy disk...

Last edited by Luridis; 08-01-2017 at 03:11 PM.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-01-2017, 05:14 PM   #67
Xeratul
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2006
Location: UNIX
Distribution: FreeBSD
Posts: 2,357

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 211Reputation: 211Reputation: 211
(1) "let it pass."
Ok, for a big project, needing a graphical library, which one would you recommend?
My guess, XWayland or use already made libraries (QT, TK, GTK,...)?
I need a stable libraries for a new software that will not have enough funding for being ported later.

(2) Several years ago, 4-5 y. ago, a friend of mine explained us in the evening, that his programmer job is not easy.
He can't keep up with change. Funny but real. Once he learned HTML, then, it was old and he needed to learn Java. Once he knew Java, it was already very old. He got to learn PHP, fast, because that was already old. Then, again too old, it was CSS. The end of this story is that the change in web programming is too fast to face changes.

(3) Human reinvent the wheel or maybe have to do so.
Early programming languages -> Fortran, Prolog, Assembler,... -> Basic, Pascal, Fortran, C, C++,... -> (...)
Term/Terminal/VT -> DOS, Borland conio.h, colors.h,... -> X11, Windows library, GDI,... -> (...)
Movies: ex, The War of the Worlds (1898) is a science fiction novel by H. G. Wells.
"1953: The War of the Worlds (1953 film), produced by George Pal and directed by Byron Haskin, for Paramount Pictures
1981: The War of the Worlds: Next Century, a Polish film by Piotr Szulkin
2005: War of the Worlds (2005 film), directed by Steven Spielberg, for Paramount Pictures.
2005: H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (2005 film), directed by Timothy Hines, for Pendragon Pictures
2005: H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (2005 film), directed by David Michael Latt (titled Invasion or The Worlds in War internationally), for The Asylum.
2008: War of the Worlds 2: The Next Wave, sequel to The Asylum's film, directed by C. Thomas Howell
2012 Alien Dawn: based very loosely on H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds set in Los Angeles, Directed by Neil Johnson
2012: War of the Worlds - The True Story a sci-fi/horror mockumentary, by Pendragon Pictures
2012: War of the Worlds: Goliath: Animated sequel set 15 years after the Wells novel
2013: The Great Martian War 1913–1917, a science fiction docudrama told in the format of an episode on the History Channel on the centennial of the first year of the War To End All Wars."

Boring no?
 
Old 08-01-2017, 06:11 PM   #68
Luridis
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2014
Location: Texas
Distribution: LFS 8.0 Custom, Merged Usr, Linux 4.9.35
Posts: 472

Rep: Reputation: 114Reputation: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xeratul View Post
(1) "let it pass."
Ok, for a big project, needing a graphical library, which one would you recommend?
My guess, XWayland or use already made libraries (QT, TK, GTK,...)?
I need a stable libraries for a new software that will not have enough funding for being ported later.
You don't know what XWayland actually is. That's one of the reasons I said you weren't listening. XWayland is not a new library, it is xorg wrapped in wayland client protocol. It is more reliable that X11 because all of those sketchy xorg drivers are gone as it speaks directly with libinput and the wayland compositor. Something written for X.Org cannot tell the difference between XWayland and X11, unless it has need to look at the driver stack, which isn't most programs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xeratul View Post
(2) Several years ago, 4-5 y. ago, a friend of mine explained us in the evening, that his programmer job is not easy.
He can't keep up with change. Funny but real. Once he learned HTML, then, it was old and he needed to learn Java. Once he knew Java, it was already very old. He got to learn PHP, fast, because that was already old. Then, again too old, it was CSS. The end of this story is that the change in web programming is too fast to face changes.
This would actually be a good point, if there weren't over one billion web pages on the internet. Apparently, web programming is not moving too fast for everyone. Perhaps your friend should try archeology, I hear that things don't change much in that field.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xeratul View Post
(3)Irrelevant War of the Worlds references.
Somehow, you've confused what goes on in the Entertainment Industry with the evolution of Computer Science. Just because you want to hold on to Apollo-Era engineering doesn't mean the rest of us want to. I for one, don't have any desire to run reel-to-reel setups in my basement.

As for your complains about stable APIs on Linux... You have a valid objection and its one that many others have made. That's why most desktop programs aren't written for Linux. Also, valid or not, wanting a stable API isn't a good reason to keep a terrible implementation around, especially one as bad as X11. I see you've looked at Qt, but have you looked at anything else? FLTK, Electron, WxWidgets? But, none of those are guaranteed to outlast XWayland either.

Now, I'll make my last point. Suppose you do this. You build some big project on X11 and manage to find someone to keep maintaining X.Org past its EOL. How many users do you think are going to be interested in manually installing X11 once distribution developers stop packaging X11? I'll bet the number is less than a single percent.
 
3 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-02-2017, 03:44 AM   #69
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,967
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 1006Reputation: 1006Reputation: 1006Reputation: 1006Reputation: 1006Reputation: 1006Reputation: 1006Reputation: 1006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luridis View Post
Why does rubbish software get a waiver?
Good question, but that would open a whole new can of worms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luridis View Post
The Unix Haters Handbook dedicated a whole chapter of it.
You probably don't need to cite that piece of literature to support your arguments. Eric S Raymond wrote a blog on that one years ago:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=538

TL;DR: it's mostly "rubbish".

Things have moved on since then, KMS/DRM drivers, 3D acceleration, etc have come along, these developments would not have been possible without the X server. It's ok to say it was crap, but no one has stepped up to develop anything better until recently - and that takes time and money. Wayland has been in development for nearly 10 years... superior display servers by proprietary vendors such Apple and google, though they are written for *nix, have not been open sourced. Most know X11 needs replacing, most acknowledge it's defects, but it has done pretty damned well all things considered.

Without funding from fortune 500 companies, Wayland would not have been possible.

In the meantime OpenBSD run their X11 privilege separated and it's limitations are well known there (developers don't like working with it).

http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=artic...20140223112426

I think by so readily and utterly condemning X you're rather selfishly and bullishly condemning what has been an enabler for the "Linux desktop" dream and much more to become a reality.

Last edited by cynwulf; 08-02-2017 at 03:46 AM.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-02-2017, 05:42 AM   #70
elcore
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2014
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 351

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
I think by so readily and utterly condemning X you're rather selfishly and bullishly condemning what has been an enabler for the "Linux desktop" dream and much more to become a reality.
Detractors and community support threatens the corporate revenue stream, didn't you get the memo?
You are effectively distracting him from important issues that need to be closed.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-02-2017, 05:49 AM   #71
Xeratul
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2006
Location: UNIX
Distribution: FreeBSD
Posts: 2,357

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 211Reputation: 211Reputation: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
Things have moved on since then, KMS/DRM drivers, 3D acceleration, etc have come along, these developments would not have been possible without the X server. It's ok to say it was crap, but no one has stepped up to develop anything better until recently - and that takes time and money. Wayland has been in development for nearly 10 years... superior display servers by proprietary vendors such Apple and google, though they are written for *nix, have not been open sourced. Most know X11 needs replacing, most acknowledge it's defects, but it has done pretty damned well all things considered.
You are probably one of 10 on earth not to judge that badly and to bash on X11.

Nice reading guys. It is good that several opinions, quite different maybe, are enriching this thread topic.
 
Old 08-02-2017, 07:28 AM   #72
Luridis
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2014
Location: Texas
Distribution: LFS 8.0 Custom, Merged Usr, Linux 4.9.35
Posts: 472

Rep: Reputation: 114Reputation: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by elcore View Post
Detractors and community support threatens the corporate revenue stream, didn't you get the memo?
You are effectively distracting him from important issues that need to be closed.
What I find utterly hilarious is that you think what I am saying was motivated by some corporate agenda. Perhaps you should take your tinfoil hat and head back to Roswell.
 
Old 08-02-2017, 07:45 AM   #73
Luridis
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2014
Location: Texas
Distribution: LFS 8.0 Custom, Merged Usr, Linux 4.9.35
Posts: 472

Rep: Reputation: 114Reputation: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
Good question, but that would open a whole new can of worms.

You probably don't need to cite that piece of literature to support your arguments. Eric S Raymond wrote a blog on that one years ago:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=538

TL;DR: it's mostly "rubbish".
Shame on you for your misleading use of a reference. "Mostly rubbish" is not how his summary of the X section reads at all. So, I call your reference "a mostly b.s. summation sorely lacking in the relevant context."

Quote:
Motif really did suck pretty badly, it’s a good thing it’s dead. - The Linked ESR Blog
I couldn't agree more.

Quote:
ICCCM is about as horrible as the authors describe
Mostly rubbish huh?

Quote:
I judge that the authors’ rejection of mechanism/policy separation as a guiding principle of X was foundationally mistaken. I argued in The Art of Unix Programming that this principle gives X an ability to adapt to new technologies and new thinking about UI that no competitor has ever matched. I still think that’s true. - The mentioned ESR blog.
Yea, it's adapted so well that the maintainers have dumped 40% of the code base, reduced the actual X server to the sole function of inter-process communication. That's not adaptation, it's restructuring an it's still not enough to fix the nightmare. While there are many things in Linux well worth supporting and defending, X isn't one of them.

Quote:
Don may have been right, architecturally speaking. But X did not win by accident; it clobbered NeWS essentially because it was open source while NeWS was not. - The ESR Blog
Ding! Ding! Ding! Someone get the man a cigar. X is where it's at by default. X is where its at, not because it is good, or well designed, but because it is the path of least effort and resistance, just like I said. A commercial license or anything requiring payment would amount to more effort. X is prominent because it's the only game in town.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
I think by so readily and utterly condemning X you're rather selfishly and bullishly condemning what has been an enabler for the "Linux desktop" dream and much more to become a reality.
Wanting things to get better isn't selfish. A better display mechanism wouldn't be privately mine. Pointing out crap when it's crap is the best way to get crap replaced by non-crap in my experience. On the other hand, defending crap because it is convenient crap just keeps the crap around that much longer.

Last edited by Luridis; 08-02-2017 at 08:13 AM. Reason: clairty
 
Old 08-02-2017, 07:46 AM   #74
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,967
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 1006Reputation: 1006Reputation: 1006Reputation: 1006Reputation: 1006Reputation: 1006Reputation: 1006Reputation: 1006
I'm no moderator and have no ambitions in that direction, but how about we try and avoid any unnecessary moderator attention by staying on topic and leaving out the sniping...?

Baseless suggestions about people being corporate stooges is not going to yield anything positive.
 
Old 08-02-2017, 08:13 AM   #75
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,967
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 1006Reputation: 1006Reputation: 1006Reputation: 1006Reputation: 1006Reputation: 1006Reputation: 1006Reputation: 1006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luridis View Post
Yea, it's adapted so well that the maintainers have dumped 40% of the code base, reduced the actual X server to the sole function of inter-process communication. That's not adaptation, it's restructuring an it's still not enough to fix the nightmare. While there are many things in Linux well worth supporting and defending, X isn't one of them.
Which means it was "adapted". You also need to consider that it was all that existed at the time and is all that has existed up until now and in fact it's still the standard. It's not "Linux" software, it predates Linux and I think that's what Linux users fail to realise.

People haven't just sat there and failed or not bothered to replace it, deliberately ignoring bad software, they just haven't been able to because it takes time and a lot of money, plus X has done the job well enough for decades in it's "adapted" form. Consider that X isn't used in android - the biggest end user "domestic" Linux market or macOS, the biggest viable desktop UNIX.

When you look at the rest of corporate Linux and embedded, it's mainly servers, routers, IoT devices, etc, so where has the need or the market or business case for a windows-like desktop for Linux been? For a few hobbyists using a free distribution?

Canonical should have put their money where their mouth was years ago and developed it, they finally got started, but are too late to the party (again). We're only now seeing movement in that direction, because there's a commercial need.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luridis View Post
Ding! Ding! Ding! Someone get the man a cigar. X is where it's at by default. X is where its at, not because it is good, or well designed, but because it is the path of least effort and resistance, just like I said.
Eric Raymond, knows this all too well. But it's not as simple as being the path of least resistance. You just seem to be focusing on excerpts which support your arguments.

Consider then that Linux, the *BSDs, etc are not projects which develop a display server as part of a complete OS. Of those only the *BSD projects are complete OS, but not at all focused on desktop usage. None of these projects have the time, manpower nor the resources to develop a display server on a par with X.org, let alone better it.

What I'm saying in a nutshell is, that you can knock X.org now, but you can't retroactively knock people for supposedly just sitting on their hands and not developing something better for free.

I personally hope they pull wayland or something similar off and that OpenBSD moves away from X.org to something simpler and cleaner - but only if it is actually simpler and cleaner and doesn't come with a whole host of new problems and security specific flaws.

//edit: Just saw your edits... I don't think any amount of hyperbole is going to change things. Cherry picking excerpts to support your arguments doesn't give your argument any more weight. I quoted Eric Raymond's blog just to illustrate that the literature you linked to doesn't really have much value and many of the critics of X who penned it, were opposed to X for their own reasons - plus it's very ancient history and X has moved on and desktops were possible.

In fact I agree on many points regarding X, but I don't accept it was somehow ill conceived from the beginning or that lazy developers simply chose the least path of resistance and didn't bother to fix it.

In the future you will probably find Linux in the same situation. People will wonder why it wasn't a microkernel or a hybrid and why he didn't just trash it in the early 00's and build from scratch instead of building onto the same base perpetually. MS Windows is also full of cruft and crud - and from what I've seen of software development, most big and unwieldy projects are the same, but sadly it takes huge amounts of time and money to replace them with something "better" - people just talking about it and calling "crap", "crap" doesn't get code written.

Last edited by cynwulf; 08-02-2017 at 08:34 AM.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[SOLVED] /usr/bin/X11/X11/....... 10 X11 subsets & counting walter74 Linux - General 2 06-07-2015 12:36 AM
LXer: What the future holds for PC-BSD LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 02-07-2013 05:51 PM
Future of Linux, Future of BSD ? tarballed Linux - General 28 01-01-2012 04:04 PM
PC BSD, Open BSD, or Free BSD ? Alexvader *BSD 5 02-08-2010 12:40 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Other *NIX Forums > *BSD

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:57 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration