Design failures

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?

>>39
Only in that normally servers are "powerful" and clients are not, but with X11 the clients generally run on more powerful systems and the servers on less (since all the "server" does is wait for instructions on what to draw and then draw them; the client does all the actual work of the program to determine what to draw.)

>>41
But what if they're the same machine?

>>39
What? The X server provides the graphics service, and the clients make use of it. Just like a file server provides a file service and a CPU server provides its CPU power.

>>43
But when you make use of a service, you don't normally run the server on the local node and the clients on the remote node.

How hard would it be to write a new graphical environment for GNU/Linux from scratch? Something that supported the majority of X's features? It can't be that hard.

>>39,40,44
X11's terminology is logically correct. See >>41,43. Just because you traditionally attribute the terminology to different systems does not make the situation more logically correct.

>>45
You mean Unix in general. X11 isn't special to GNU/Linux. It doesn't make sense invest significant effort to reimplement X11 when you already have a working Xorg system.

>>46

Xorg is working for some values of working that include not working.

see, for example, man xrandr (the fact they need to include a --dryrun option is a big clue), and all the various guis for xrandr, some of which are horriby buggy.

>>47
What do you think gives a greater investment/payoff ratio: fixing Xorg or reimplementing X11 from scratch. My money's on fixing Xorg.

>>48
you left out the option of fixing this: http://www.fresco.org/
one thing that would need to be fixed is the fact that it's not free, though...

>>49
It is free under the LGPL.

Has anybody seen Wayland?
http://groups.google.com/group/wayland-display-server/web/frequently-askeds-questions
They have a working terminal and have gotten an X server running inside it, looks pretty nice.

>>40
MIT isn't tradtionally UNIX

>>50
http://slencyclopedia.berlios.de/gui.html
Unfortunately it's not free software; it's under (L)GPL.

>>48
My money's on reimplementing from scratch. Or we could just port Rio.

>>49,51
Where do you guys find these things, at a CORBA conference?

>>52
Yeah, leave it to the hardcore nerds to come up with something worse than what the stoners at Berkeley were churning out.

>>53
Software licensed under the LGPL are free software. Users are permitted to help themselves as well as share and cooperate with their community whenever they please.

>>57
so i can take LGPL'd code and relicense it under the 2-clause BSD license?

>>58
That liberty is not explicitly expressed within the LGPL. You'd have to get the licensors' permission to do that.

>>59
then it's not free.

>>60
Users are permitted to help themselves as well as share and cooperate with their community whenever they please.
LGPL permits all the essential freedoms that allow users to help oneself and cooperate as part of a community. This makes the LGPL a free software license. Any other liberty that may or may not exist is secondary compared to the essential freedoms.

>>61
Back to Berkeley, please.

>>61
LGPL permits all the essential freedoms that allow users to help oneself and cooperate as part of a community.

Of course it doesn't -- as pointed out earlier it doesn't permit one to reuse the code under the 2-clause BSD, therefore the flow of code is completely restricted in the "LGPL projects -> BSD projects" direction.

Arguing that it's BSD users' fault and that they can change their license if they really want the code is like arguing that meth is free if you agree to do blowjobs. Yes, it's free as in doesn't cost any money, but you have to suck dicks to get it. If you are not particularly partial to gobbling mouthfuls of smelly cocks then it is not free for you, not really.

>>63
Just because two licensing conditions are incompatible doesn't mean that one or both of the licenses are non-free. It just means that the licensing conditions are incompatible. CDDL is incompatible with the GPLv2 are both are free. 3-Clause BSDL is incompatible is GPLv2 and both are free.

So if you can't (or won't) accept the accompanying distribution license to some software code (and therefore reject the code altogether), how can communities manage to cooperate? If worse comes to worst, you might not want to take the code verbatim, but you may certainly study the logic and use it as the basis for something else. This is how individuals and communities can still cooperate in contributing software without directly integrating another person's code.

Arguing that it's BSD users' fault and that they can change their license if they really want the code is like arguing that meth is free if you agree to do blowjobs. Yes, it's free as in doesn't cost any money, but you have to suck dicks to get it. If you are not particularly partial to gobbling mouthfuls of smelly cocks then it is not free for you, not really.
lol wut? I think you need to find another analogy because I have no idea about where you're trying to go.

So if you can't (or won't) accept the accompanying distribution license to some software code (and therefore reject the code altogether), how can communities manage to cooperate?
How about by not being dicks and just using free licenses in the first place? Plenty of licenses preferred by 9 of 10 non-dicks lets the code be shared with pretty much anything just fine.

I think everybody's trolled GPLv2/3 a lot, but I'm surprised that something even less free than it doesn't get trolled as much: The AGPL.

>>65
How about by not being dicks and just using free licenses in the first place? Plenty of licenses preferred by 9 of 10 non-dicks lets the code be shared with pretty much anything just fine.
and just using free licenses in the first place?
MIT, BSD, WTFPL, public domain are all more free than GPL.

You know what's really awesome about open source Lisp code? Almost all of it is licensed as MIT, BSD, public domain, LLGPL (more free LGPL which lets you statically link too), or something else free-er than vanilla GPL. So far few things are done as LGPL, and much lesser (and less serious projects) are done as GPL. Most people avoid the latter as cancer.

>>34
I'd just like  to interject  for a moment. What you're refering to as Windows 7, is in fact, Windows Vista SP3, or as I've recently taken to calling it, Mojave Experiment 2.0. Windows 7 is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another marketing scheme by Microsoft to trick users into trying Vista, a full OS as defined by Microsoft.

Many computer users run a modified version of Vista every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of Vista which is widely used is often called "Windows 7," and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the Vista system, developed by Microsoft.

There really is a Windows 7, and these people are using it, but it is just part of the system they use. Windows 7 is the Graphical User Interface; the program in the system that lets idiots click on things and think they know how a computer works. The Graphical User Interface is an essential part of an operating system that was made for retards, but useless by itself; it can only appear to have a function in the context of the user not knowing how their OS works. The Windows 7 GUI is normally used in combination with the Vista operating system; the whole system is basically Windows Vista with shinier buttons added. All the so called "Windows 7" users are really users of Windows Vista SP3.

>>68
Why bother with marketing names at all? Just call it after kernel versions:

NT3   - NTOS 3.x
NT4   - NTOS 4.x
2k    - NTOS 5.0
XP    - NTOS 5.1
2k3   - NTOS 5.2
Vista - NTOS 6.0
WS2k8 - NTOS 6.0
2k8r2 - NTOS 6.1
Win7  - NTOS 6.1

The Server vs Desktop differences tend to be in software included, licensing options/settings, and some minor kernel tweaking to accomodate more common usage scenarios, but in most cases, they're just builds targetted/tweaked with different goals in mind.

9x kernel line is ignored as while they have some shared code, and implements a more limited version of winapi, it has completly different internals, and is a completly different kernel than than NT. (Versions there are 1.0,2.0,3.0,3.1,4.0,... (9x line)).

>>69

Because that goes against their marketing strategy. Idiots are a lot more excited moving from smelly old Windows Vista to shiny new Windows 7; NT 6.0 to NT 6.1 doesn't really justify the money for a new system, does it? Giving it a cool new name and look makes people think they're actually getting something cool and new.

>>68,70
If I didn't know better, I could swear that you are of the opinion that such marketing tactics do not work on you.

>>71
If I didn't know better, I could swear that you are of the opinion that replying derisively to copypasta is the highest form of intellectual discussion.

>>66
No one uses the AGPL. The only one you could possibly troll with AGPL is RMS Mary-Sue himself.
>>67
I think we're actually in agreement.

>>31
edit /etc/X11/xorg.conf and add a section called "GL" and put "driver nv" in it.
wat

<

^{Back to /b/, ``GNAA Faggot''}

80 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-20 9:21

　　　　　　　　　　 __　　　　　　　　　￣　-,／)
　　　　　　　 , --'.:::::::', ---- 、　　,-、,-'-'　/:)
　　　　　　　/:::::::::::---:::::::::::::::: ヽ　ヽ::::::::::::::::/
　　　　　　ノﾉ:::::::::ﾉ:::::::::::::::::::::::ヽ:::ヽ　ヽ／＼|
　　　　　/ :/:::ノ::::ﾉ::::::ﾉi:::::人::::::|::::::}.　 |／:::::|
　 　 　　{:(:(:::/::／ ゝ,ノ ﾉノ ／))::ノ:) 　|＼//|
　　　　 人:.:.ノ::(　(ﾋ_] 　　　ﾋ_ﾝ/:::.:.ﾉ　|//＼|
　　 　 ( 　)(:::::人'''　　,＿__,　 '' ﾉ:) (:( /ヽヽ::|
　　 　　) 　: )ﾉ:.:.) 　　ヽ _ﾝ　　(::ﾉ:.:ノ''' ヽヽ/
　　　 ノ　　:( : ):(＞.., ______ ._イﾉ／:::::::::::／
　　　('　　　ｨ´￣￣ヾゝ====i:ノ/:::::::::／
　　　 ヽ　 i:::::::::::i::::::i◇◇◇◇i::::::／（
　　　 /　 .i二二i::::::|>◇◇◇<|:::::!　　',
　　 ノ　　 ';::::::::::k::::|´　　　　｀i:::::;'　　　）
.　 （　　　　',:::::::::::',:i￣￣￣￣|:::〈　　 （
　　）　　　　ヽ:::::::::ヽ￣~７ヽ￣|::::::',　　 ヽ