Re: Rant [Was: Re: changing color depth in XFree86]

[Stewart <bdlists@snerk.org>]

Glynn Clements wrote:

>>Then the applications will have to remove their legacy code and catch up 
>>with the needs of the users, rather than the programmers.
> 
> Oh right; we'll just re-write all of the existing X applications and
> libraries. No problem.

Melodrama isn't going to help your case, I dare say.

>>Actually, the same is true of resizing the root window; however, fewer
>>applications actually care about that and, for those which do, any
>>failures are likely to be less critical.
> 
> Few applications (except window managers) are concerned with the
> screen dimensions, and most of those which are will exhibit relatively
> minor faults if the dimensions do change. The real problem is changing
> the *depth*.

So it's not going to be done because it's "hard"?

Perhaps what I've been saying all along is true; OSS really isn't ready 
for prime-time desktop use.

If you're going to claim that the world's most revolutionary programming 
model is fundamentally flawed because it won't tackle "hard" problems - 
problems which are already overcome by all of their closed-source 
bretheren - then just come out and say it.

Or are you going to find a better reason why this is a bad idea?

> I'm a long-time Linux user/admin/programmer who has progressively
> become more sceptical of both Linux and free software generally;
> primarily because of a growing tendency to sacrifice important factors
> such as compatibility (both with previous versions and with real
> Unix/X11 systems) in favour of non-critical features and gimmicks.
> 
> Every time that I hear the Slashdot crowd enthusing over the fact that
[...]

And every time I hear a legacy supporter throwing the "Slashdot crowd" 
out as if it were a valid argument, I roll my eyes.

> such-and-such now has an animated alpha-translucent drop-shadowed OK
> button I just wonder which rational property was sacrificed for that
> piece of nonsense. Performance? Reliability? Portability? Memory
> consumption? "Who cares? - we have animated alpha-translucent
> drop-shadowed OK buttons, yay!"

We're talking about the X server, not KDE/GNOME. Focus.

>>Changing resolution on the fly has come to be expected from 
>>any modern desktop environment.
> 
> That sounds like "Windows has it, therefore we should".

No, actually, it means that these are desired (nay, required) features 
for many settings, and we don't have it.

>>It's taken far too long, IMO, for XFree86.Org to catch up and
>>implement such functionality in their server.
> 
> When it comes to breaking compatibility, the longer they leave it the
> better.

Compatability at the cost of being ten years obsolete, merely for the 
sake of compatability, is ridiculous.