LinuxQuestions.org
Visit Jeremy's Blog.
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 08-02-2017, 09:05 AM   #76
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
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.
Why it isn't a microkernel is pretty obvious to me: They do not work efficiently on production hardware. Specifically, their IPC is terrible with virtual memory. I've argued several times that microkernels are good theory but not so good application on available hardware.

Yes, I cherry picked and you "summary rubbish"ed. Touche.

Lastly, my point is that someone is finally developing something better. But, what do we get? We get "x is the Unix way" and people arguing to keep bad software around. Calling it crap, when it clearly is crap, will hopefully keep things moving forward. Or, we can spend another 20 years running garbage software because people assume that because it is old, it must be "the UNIX way" and is therefore worth hanging on to. Again old != Unix Philosophy, currently works != Unix philosophy.

You know, the first time I ran Weston it crashed. You know what else... It told me right there on the screen what failed, there was a module named incorrectly in the config file. When it did finally come up, it felt like a desktop. No flaky input lag, no tearing, no filling empty blocks when resizing windows. (Note: I never understood the reason for the input lag until I watched that presentation, the ridiculous amount of IPC involved in just drawing an X window finally explains it.)

Why would I ever want to go back to generating config files and xserver lag that can last seconds? To want X to stay around is to be a masochist.

Last edited by Luridis; 08-02-2017 at 09:07 AM.
 
Old 08-02-2017, 10:22 AM   #77
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 it isn't a microkernel is pretty obvious to me: They do not work efficiently on production hardware. Specifically, their IPC is terrible with virtual memory. I've argued several times that microkernels are good theory but not so good application on available hardware.
Which is why XNU and NT are hybrid kernels... but my point is that I also prefer monolithic kernels for the reasons stated and more, but "the future" may view things differently. History is the judge as they say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luridis View Post
Why would I ever want to go back to generating config files and xserver lag that can last seconds? To want X to stay around is to be a masochist.
I agree, but I've never made the point that I want X to stay around...

https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...6/#post5708154
https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...6/#post5708098
https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...6/#post5709751

I just don't agree with your stance that we've been running "garbage" for "20 years". I also don't think the "The Unix Haters Handbook" makes better or more valid points than Eric S Raymond makes in his blog. In fact it's mainly a collection of quotes, more like throwaway comments, from some very biased people.

Last edited by cynwulf; 08-02-2017 at 10:25 AM.
 
Old 08-02-2017, 10:45 AM   #78
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
I just don't agree with your stance that we've been running "garbage" for "20 years". I also don't think the "The Unix Haters Handbook" makes better or more valid points than Eric S Raymond makes in his blog. In fact it's mainly a collection of quotes, more like throwaway comments, from some very biased people.
Again, I don't think X has just become "dated". So, I don't see how people see monolithic kernels in the future is relevant. I think, as many others do, that X has has always been terrible design. This is not a new idea for me. When I first used it in... 96ish it gave me a WTF moment because it did not seem possible that the console worked so well and X was... well, a nightmare. When I investigated further, I understood it to be some carry over (clone) from CDE and commercial Unixes, one that was not well liked there either.
 
Old 08-02-2017, 10:49 AM   #79
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
I agree, but I've never made the point that I want X to stay around...
Could X11 have been better maintained, actually by the maintainers? here is a beautiful quote:

Quote:
There was a video of Wayland makers ((ex-)X11 coders) declaring X11 dead because of it's ugly add-ons over the decades. But who has made them if not the X11 coders?
Now that's taken as reason for Wayland...

X11 may be dead but it was killed by its own maintainers!
 
Old 08-02-2017, 11:13 AM   #80
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
Could X11 have been better maintained, actually by the maintainers? here is a beautiful quote:
Just as leaded gasoline was killed by the automobile industry. I fail to see why deliberately depreciating a poor design is bad.
 
Old 08-02-2017, 11:44 AM   #81
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
Just as leaded gasoline was killed by the automobile industry. I fail to see why deliberately depreciating a poor design is bad.
Good point... I am looking forward to reading others on it.
 
Old 08-02-2017, 12:42 PM   #82
elcore
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2014
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 351

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luridis View Post
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.
I wasn't talking about you personally, but whatever. Think what you want.

The corporate trend of replacing broken things with new and shiny is what worries me, not some individual.
Just toss it and buy a new one, until the point where it's soldered together in a factory so you can't repair it. EU has written laws against it.
Wayland will eventually get replaced when something new comes along, and then you will see it could've been much easier and cheaper to just strip down X to a minimum and fix what's broken.
But there's no profit to be made on "crap" as you put it, so why not build another "crap" every year? Like apple does for example.
 
Old 08-02-2017, 03:46 PM   #83
Xeratul
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2006
Location: UNIX
Distribution: FreeBSD
Posts: 2,357

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 211Reputation: 211Reputation: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by elcore View Post
The corporate trend of replacing broken things with new and shiny is what worries me, not some individual.
(Modern) developers are the first to create bloat and shiny things. X11 shall still be the future?

Respect for your thinking. However the sad thing is that you are completely alone, well, +1 +1, = 2 Persons only so far.
 
Old 08-02-2017, 03:47 PM   #84
Xeratul
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2006
Location: UNIX
Distribution: FreeBSD
Posts: 2,357

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 211Reputation: 211Reputation: 211
@Elcore:

woooooww. That's courageous to say this !

Quote:
and then you will see it could've been much easier and cheaper to just strip down X to a minimum and fix what's broken.
This is UNIX thinking !!
 
Old 08-02-2017, 03:55 PM   #85
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
I wasn't talking about you personally, but whatever. Think what you want.

The corporate trend of replacing broken things with new and shiny is what worries me, not some individual.
Just toss it and buy a new one, until the point where it's soldered together in a factory so you can't repair it. EU has written laws against it.
Wayland will eventually get replaced when something new comes along, and then you will see it could've been much easier and cheaper to just strip down X to a minimum and fix what's broken.
But there's no profit to be made on "crap" as you put it, so why not build another "crap" every year? Like apple does for example.
If X can be stripped down and fixed so easily I suggest you setup a presentation at one of the OS/FS events. At the very least you should setup a blog about it. Otherwise, you're just another one of the internet "peanut gallery" talking b.s. and armchair quarterbacking on an issue he doesn't know anything about. If you have good arguments for fixing and continuing X, people will hear them, including me. If you can't do that then I will rightfully consider your opinion to be based on nostalgia or some other nonsense that doesn't apply to the actual problem at hand.
 
Old 08-02-2017, 03:59 PM   #86
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
@Elcore:

woooooww. That's courageous to say this !



This is UNIX thinking !!
I hear lots of bluster and see very little architectural or programmatic demonstration in such statements.

We can fix X... I don't know how, but we can do it!

Good luck with that.
 
Old 08-02-2017, 05:25 PM   #87
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
I hear lots of bluster and see very little architectural or programmatic demonstration in such statements.

We can fix X... I don't know how, but we can do it!

Good luck with that.
With all of that to be fixed. Good luck, but the idea is good.

Like a mountain of code to fix. Probably impossible and Wayland came as a good solution.

It is always better to make a new project name, when the code is significantly changed, improved,... and does not look similar.

Sad for X11.

Last edited by Xeratul; 08-02-2017 at 05:26 PM.
 
Old 08-03-2017, 12:49 AM   #88
elcore
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2014
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 351

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luridis View Post
If X can be stripped down and fixed so easily I suggest you setup a presentation at one of the OS/FS events. At the very least you should setup a blog about it. Otherwise, you're just another one of the internet "peanut gallery" talking b.s. and armchair quarterbacking on an issue he doesn't know anything about. If you have good arguments for fixing and continuing X, people will hear them, including me. If you can't do that then I will rightfully consider your opinion to be based on nostalgia or some other nonsense that doesn't apply to the actual problem at hand.
X works, sometimes the end result depends on GPU driver and hardware, but it works fine for my use case; monitoring servers.
I've got nothing against alternative solutions, there always must be something to fill the blank when things break, I get that.
What you don't get, is that both packagers and sysadmins like well tested, feature complete things with a stable and modular interface.
Evidently, they're not going to toss a working solution until the alternative is stable enough.
 
Old 08-03-2017, 01:21 AM   #89
Randicus Draco Albus
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2011
Location: Hiding somewhere on planet Earth.
Distribution: No distribution. OpenBSD operating system
Posts: 1,667
Blog Entries: 8

Rep: Reputation: 599Reputation: 599Reputation: 599Reputation: 599Reputation: 599Reputation: 599
Personally, I think part of the problem is the failure of many people to understand what X was designed to be and what it is used for. Taking my use-case for example:
- I use a tiling window manager. No resource-heavy DE that requires hardware acceleration and 2GB of RAM.
- I do not use my computer to play games. (Which is not an option anyway when using OpenBSD.)
- I use the lightest viable browsers. Not huge monstrosities like Firefox.

The result is X has always worked perfectly well for me with both BSD and Linux. The X window system was designed a long time ago for simple graphical needs. The problem is that it has been expanded and modified to accomodate what the new generation of Linux users want; a free Windows replacement. (And what the businesses that have been persuaded to use it in their workplaces want.) X is being used for a job it was not designed for, so a replacement is needed, but that will take time and money. Until then, one workaround is to have a simple and lean system that does not task the graphical capbilities of X, which, in my opinion, is something BSD and Linux users should want anyway.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-03-2017, 01:22 AM   #90
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
X works, sometimes the end result depends on GPU driver and hardware, but it works fine for my use case; monitoring servers.
I've got nothing against alternative solutions, there always must be something to fill the blank when things break, I get that.
What you don't get, is that both packagers and sysadmins like well tested, feature complete things with a stable and modular interface.
Evidently, they're not going to toss a working solution until the alternative is stable enough.
They (Sysadmins) also don't like shoddy, problematic code bases that users and support personnel constantly complain about. I know this because I am a Systems Management Admin and I've been through it enough with Java. So, I get things just fine and you're just making assumptions again.

Assumptions, opinions, complaints and thinly veiled resistance to change... Since that's all I continue to see here, I'll unsubscribe. That way y'all can go on and on about how good X is, how easy it is to fix, how it's "network transparent" (not for some years now), how much the world still needs motif, and how this really bad IPC implementation (X11) is an exemplar of the Unix Philosophy and is the One True Way®. Meanwhile, the rest of the world will move on while you are all stilling here scoffing at True Type Fonts, composite effects and contextual menus like a bunch of old curmudgeons.

When I got my first Unix, it had 16k of RAM. We didn't even have no electricity and I had to run in a squirrel cage attached to a generator! Uphill, both ways!

So, go ahead commence with the reciprocal back patting. Oh, and PM your address. I think I might have some 8" floppy disks out in the garage that you might find useful. Hell, I might have a couple of mouldy reels or even a drum!

Last edited by Luridis; 08-03-2017 at 01:23 AM.
 
  


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 09:58 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