What is up with the Linux GUI System?
 

I have come across a website named "Linux Sux" (linsux.org), and this person poses an excellent point:

"The foundation of the Linux GUI, X11, hasn't experienced any revolutionary changes to its structure since its creation. . . . . . . . . Until a viable replacement for X11 hits the market, Linux will always suck, and that's just life."

Now granted I don't believe that Linux "sucks" as a whole, contrarily I disagree. I do, however, LOVE the new OS X GUI system. It is amazingly reliable. So all of this rant leads me to my question:

When will there be or Is there a GUI system in development that doesn't rely on the Client/Server methodology? Something along the lines of Quartz/Aqua for OS X. Maybe this is an idiot question, but I for one have experienced MANY video problems with Linux in the past and didn't understand why it had to be so complicated.

please bare with me as my ignorance in Linux proceeds me and I am somewhat simple minded.

-aratis

"please bare with me as my ignorance in Linux proceeds me and I am somewhat simple minded"

Being aware of your sins is admirable, but being a Mac user sadly cancels that out.

XFree86 has been replaced with X all major linux distributions.

The client/server model does not have as massive a performance hit as he would like to make out. He doesn't state it but he gives the impression that the throughput of a communication is limited to 10/100Mbps as you would find on a standard LAN. Which is completely misleading. Unless you are truely communication across a LAN or larger network of some kind, which is one of the benefits of the methodology.

That being said, I have a network full of BSD computers at home, and the amount of time I spend taking advantage of the client/server setup is insane compared to my thinking when I used Windows. The ease of doing this is something you should not overlook. Being able to throw commands at a computer and have it automatically open new windows or message boxes on your local terminal in a well defined manner is priceless.

Finally, he mentions games and other huge graphics performance intensive applications which already have the ability to over-ride the client/server methods and use DRI and other functions to directly manipulate the hardware and graphics. So the point he is trying to make is really moot.

There are areas where things can be improved. But the situation is not nearly as bad as the author of that page tried to make it out to be.

Oh, let me add one more little comment on this FUD:

20 years ago they designed X for a technology (100Mbps ethernet) which would be invented 10 years ago. ;)

Note: There was thicknet (10Mbps) ethernet about the time X Window was originally created... but the limits of the network speed were not built into the communication. If anything, the API was trimmed as much as possible to reduce local latency to compensate for the network latency which was introduced.

Thank You so much for the quick replies. Very intuitive, and I can understand the situation better now with opposing opinions. For the record the MAC usage is strictly related to work related tasks.

-aratis