/prog/ - Design failures

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-17 2:25

For example, all X11 clients crash when the server goes down.

When was the last time your browser crashed because a server was down? Or your irc client? Or whatever else there is except for X11 programs? Yeah, that's right.

Why they wouldn't just wait for the server to come up again and reconnect is beyond me. I mean it's a client-server system, so what's the point of not making use of it? Sure, you can connect from some remote machine and play around for a bit, but it's fucking useless when all your programs crash once you disconnect!!!

What the fuck were they thinking?

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-17 3:37

>>2
Your "recovery" is about as useful as a "full reboot" for the vast majority of computer users.

P.S.: Not to start a flame war but on Windows you can literally disable and enable a graphics adapter (and update or replace the whole driver in between) and even 3D applications will survive.

>>3
Also remoting via "bitmap" approaches (VNC/RDP) always worked better than X11 even with tricks, and that's the only thing such a design had going for it (I don't know why people keep mentioning that as an X11 advantage; if anything is a terrible disadvantage - Firefox will very easily kill weak machines by uploading too much bitmaps to the X server)

Design failures

1 Name: Anonymous 2010-02-17 2:25

4 Name: Anonymous 2010-02-17 3:37

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-17 2:25

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-17 3:37