X is terrible

I'll use Linux as a desktop machine when someone writes a GUI that doesn't suck.  Until that happens I'm going to continue to use ssh for my UNIX needs.

I see someone doesn't understand what X is. It is terrible, but not in a way that has any bearing on the suckiness of the GUI.

>>4
>>5
What I'm saying is that X is highly flawed in design.  Is very buggy in implementation. And its layering strategy is very enterprise-y and bad.  Windows are just a rectangle that you can move around paint in and click the x button to close, whats so hard about that eh?

You think the problem is X, but it is your video card drivers.

>>6
Then why don't you implement a better version of it?

No? Then don't talk.

>>6
I used to rabidly follow the development of X11 alternatives. And then I actually used Linux and went "Oh, right, this has hardware acceleration and doesn't suck"

And then the developers of stuff died horribly in a rape accident

It's not really X that sucks-- the problem is actually xlib.

>>15
LHB and a message? Beside the usual "Freetards suck". You have got to be kidding me.

The problem with X is purely technical. It's original purpose was not performance but network transparency. It needs re-purposing but the X server is a huge code base.

The funny thing is that nVidia apparently did just that but doesn't/can't publish their work and the X team has to reinvent the wheel with DRI2. Hopefully DRI2 will fix these issues and X will have both network transparency and 3D acceleration. The performance and OGL support in the X intel driver, for example, shapes up nicely in Fedora 11