22 Feb
2011
22 Feb
'11
5:01 p.m.
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 02:46:35PM +0100, Nick Copeland wrote:
How ?
Ciao,
--
FA
Fons, you are tripping up over your own arguments
here. Firstly you state that a
well written app should divorce itself from the underlying medium, then you are
arguing that they actually should be using the underlying X11 to be able to be a
distributed app.
X11 hides the hardware and allows the app to be independent of it, just as do
Jack for audio, sockets for networking, etc. Do you suggest that I should not
use Jack or sockets because e.g. Windows doesn't have them (natively) ?
This is a contradiction
It isn't. X does abstract the HW. And even more.
and, for example, just because I know
about this app and how it works, bristol can work headless without X11 as it takes
an abstract transport layer in a similar way to the one you are arguing both for and
against. You simply do not need X11 for distributed processing or at least if you are
dependent on it then, as you state yourself, your solution is badly written.
And how does Bristol run remotely but with a local display if not by either
X forwarding, or having some ad-hoc code to split the app into two parts ?
The latter has to be redone for each and every application, if you ever
want to use it remotely.
If 'a
generation of users' is any reference, we should just forget about
Linux, switch to Windows and call it a day. We should also eat only fast
food, believe everything the TV news and ads tell us, hate strangers and
homosexuals, and generally be ignorant about everything. There's probably
no argument more irrelevant than this sort of populist ones.
Sarky today. My point is that a generation of users is used to not having to rely
on as banal and cumbersome a method as that offered by X11 to distribute their
processing - there are other ways it is being done.