«

http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/w...-ever-grow-911

"The bottom line: Linux is still too hyperactive for its own good. Its
development process is plagued by false starts, half-completed initiatives,
and a desperate need to please way too many interested parties. In other
words, Linux is a teenager. And until it grows up and takes responsibility
for the basics -- like providing a stable windowing environment -- it'll
never be taken seriously by IT."

"Allistar" <> wrote in message
news: ...
> impossible wrote:
>
>> http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/w...-ever-grow-911
>>
>> "The bottom line: Linux is still too hyperactive for its own good. Its
>> development process is plagued by false starts, half-completed
>> initiatives, and a desperate need to please way too many interested
>> parties. In other words, Linux is a teenager. And until it grows up and
>> takes responsibility for the basics -- like providing a stable windowing
>> environment -- it'll never be taken seriously by IT."
>
> I'm "IT" and I take it seriously. I find the windowing environment I use
> to
> be quite stable.
> --

Hmmm...."quite stable". Like this, you mean?

http://www.osnews.com/story/21999/Ed...ista_Windows_7

"And here we see why the X.org stack is a steaming pile of dog poo. VLC was
using the XVideo output, which is what it defaults to. Apparently, the
resize operating crashed XVideo. Which crashed X.org. And as all you
educated Linux geeks know but some of you might want to forget: if X.org
crashes - so do all of your applications. "

"Allistar" <> wrote in message
news: ...
> impossible wrote:
>
>>
>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
>> news: ...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/w...-ever-grow-911
>>>>
>>>> "The bottom line: Linux is still too hyperactive for its own good. Its
>>>> development process is plagued by false starts, half-completed
>>>> initiatives, and a desperate need to please way too many interested
>>>> parties. In other words, Linux is a teenager. And until it grows up and
>>>> takes responsibility for the basics -- like providing a stable
>>>> windowing
>>>> environment -- it'll never be taken seriously by IT."
>>>
>>> I'm "IT" and I take it seriously. I find the windowing environment I use
>>> to
>>> be quite stable.
>>> --
>>
>> Hmmm...."quite stable". Like this, you mean?
>>
>>
> http://www.osnews.com/story/21999/Ed...ista_Windows_7
>>
>> "And here we see why the X.org stack is a steaming pile of dog poo. VLC
>> was using the XVideo output, which is what it defaults to. Apparently,
>> the
>> resize operating crashed XVideo. Which crashed X.org. And as all you
>> educated Linux geeks know but some of you might want to forget: if X.org
>> crashes - so do all of your applications. "
>
> I've never had that problem before.

Does this always have to be about you, Allistar? Try to imagine a world in
which many things happen that you don't actually get to experience yourself.
In this case, count yourself lucky.

> And "crashing all of your applications"
> should be "crashing all of your X applications".
> --

Well, actually it **shouldn't** be crashing all your X applications. Should
it?

On Aug 26, 12:51*pm, Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
> impossible wrote:
>
> > "Allistar" <b...@c.com> wrote in message
> >news: m...
> >> impossible wrote:
>
> >>>http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/w...-ever-grow-911
>
> >>> "The bottom line: Linux is still too hyperactive for its own good. Its
> >>> development process is plagued by false starts, half-completed
> >>> initiatives, and a desperate need to please way too many interested
> >>> parties. In other words, Linux is a teenager. And until it grows up and
> >>> takes responsibility for the basics -- like providing a stable windowing
> >>> environment -- it'll never be taken seriously by IT."
>
> >> I'm "IT" and I take it seriously. I find the windowing environment I use
> >> to
> >> be quite stable.
> >> --
>
> > Hmmm...."quite stable". Like this, you mean?
>
> http://www.osnews.com/story/21999/Ed...rn_a_Lot_from_...
>
>
>
> > "And here we see why the X.org stack is a steaming pile of dog poo. VLC
> > was using the XVideo output, which is what it defaults to. Apparently, the
> > resize operating crashed XVideo. Which crashed X.org. And as all you
> > educated Linux geeks know but some of you might want to forget: if X.org
> > crashes - so do all of your applications. "
>
> I've never had that problem before. And "crashing all of your applications"
> should be "crashing all of your X applications".
> --
> A.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

LOL - that's terrible design. Holy crap, so if a graphics driver fails
it shuts down anything that is using it? What the hell.

"Allistar" <> wrote in message
news: ...
> impossible wrote:
>
>>
>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
>> news: ...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
>>>> news: ...
>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/w...-ever-grow-911
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The bottom line: Linux is still too hyperactive for its own good.
>>>>>> Its
>>>>>> development process is plagued by false starts, half-completed
>>>>>> initiatives, and a desperate need to please way too many interested
>>>>>> parties. In other words, Linux is a teenager. And until it grows up
>>>>>> and takes responsibility for the basics -- like providing a stable
>>>>>> windowing
>>>>>> environment -- it'll never be taken seriously by IT."
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm "IT" and I take it seriously. I find the windowing environment I
>>>>> use to
>>>>> be quite stable.
>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm...."quite stable". Like this, you mean?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
> http://www.osnews.com/story/21999/Ed...ista_Windows_7
>>>>
>>>> "And here we see why the X.org stack is a steaming pile of dog poo. VLC
>>>> was using the XVideo output, which is what it defaults to. Apparently,
>>>> the
>>>> resize operating crashed XVideo. Which crashed X.org. And as all you
>>>> educated Linux geeks know but some of you might want to forget: if
>>>> X.org
>>>> crashes - so do all of your applications. "
>>>
>>> I've never had that problem before.
>>
>> Does this always have to be about you, Allistar? Try to imagine a world
>> in
>> which many things happen that you don't actually get to experience
>> yourself. In this case, count yourself lucky.
>
> I'm merely commenting on my own experiences. What experiences do you have
> on
> the stability of window managers in Linux?
>

I don't need direct experience with a system to understand why it's unstable
and why I wouldn't want to use it. Not since I learned to read.

>>> And "crashing all of your applications"
>>> should be "crashing all of your X applications".
>>
>> Well, actually it **shouldn't** be crashing all your X applications.
>> Should it?
>
> X applications rely on X to be running. If X stops running then the X
> applications will stop running to (but the non X ones won't). Just like
> with Windows - if the window manager (or whatever the equivalent is
> called)
> dies, then all running apps would die too I would expect.
> --

No, they wouldn't -- not in Vista and not in Winodws 7. Maybe Linux can
learn something there.

"Bret" <> wrote in message
news:1ubfz1ods5i29$... .
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:16:26 -0700 (PDT), Bobs wrote:
>
>> On Aug 26, 12:51 pm, Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Allistar" <b...@c.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:UJ6dnf6_XLF94AnXnZ2dnUVZ_gJi4p2d@giganews .com...
>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/w...-ever-grow-911
>>>
>>>>>> "The bottom line: Linux is still too hyperactive for its own good.
>>>>>> Its
>>>>>> development process is plagued by false starts, half-completed
>>>>>> initiatives, and a desperate need to please way too many interested
>>>>>> parties. In other words, Linux is a teenager. And until it grows up
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> takes responsibility for the basics -- like providing a stable
>>>>>> windowing
>>>>>> environment -- it'll never be taken seriously by IT."
>>>
>>>>> I'm "IT" and I take it seriously. I find the windowing environment I
>>>>> use
>>>>> to
>>>>> be quite stable.
>>>>> --
>>>
>>>> Hmmm...."quite stable". Like this, you mean?
>>>
>>> http://www.osnews.com/story/21999/Ed...rn_a_Lot_from_...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> "And here we see why the X.org stack is a steaming pile of dog poo. VLC
>>>> was using the XVideo output, which is what it defaults to. Apparently,
>>>> the
>>>> resize operating crashed XVideo. Which crashed X.org. And as all you
>>>> educated Linux geeks know but some of you might want to forget: if
>>>> X.org
>>>> crashes - so do all of your applications. "
>>>
>>> I've never had that problem before. And "crashing all of your
>>> applications"
>>> should be "crashing all of your X applications".
>>> --
>>> A.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> LOL - that's terrible design. Holy crap, so if a graphics driver fails
>> it shuts down anything that is using it? What the hell.
>
> What driver are you refering to.

Hmmm...let's see...we're discussing a catastrophic Linux windowing system
failure resulting from...oh, let me take a wild guess.....graphics driver?

impossible wrote:
>
> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
> news: ...
>> impossible wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
>>> news: ...
>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
>>>>> news: ...
>>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/w...-ever-grow-911
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The bottom line: Linux is still too hyperactive for its own
>>>>>>> good. Its
>>>>>>> development process is plagued by false starts, half-completed
>>>>>>> initiatives, and a desperate need to please way too many interested
>>>>>>> parties. In other words, Linux is a teenager. And until it grows up
>>>>>>> and takes responsibility for the basics -- like providing a stable
>>>>>>> windowing
>>>>>>> environment -- it'll never be taken seriously by IT."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm "IT" and I take it seriously. I find the windowing environment I
>>>>>> use to
>>>>>> be quite stable.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm...."quite stable". Like this, you mean?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>> http://www.osnews.com/story/21999/Ed...ista_Windows_7
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "And here we see why the X.org stack is a steaming pile of dog poo.
>>>>> VLC
>>>>> was using the XVideo output, which is what it defaults to. Apparently,
>>>>> the
>>>>> resize operating crashed XVideo. Which crashed X.org. And as all you
>>>>> educated Linux geeks know but some of you might want to forget: if
>>>>> X.org
>>>>> crashes - so do all of your applications. "
>>>>
>>>> I've never had that problem before.
>>>
>>> Does this always have to be about you, Allistar? Try to imagine a
>>> world in
>>> which many things happen that you don't actually get to experience
>>> yourself. In this case, count yourself lucky.
>>
>> I'm merely commenting on my own experiences. What experiences do you
>> have on
>> the stability of window managers in Linux?
>>
>
> I don't need direct experience with a system to understand why it's
> unstable and why I wouldn't want to use it. Not since I learned to read.
>
>>>> And "crashing all of your applications"
>>>> should be "crashing all of your X applications".
>>>
>>> Well, actually it **shouldn't** be crashing all your X applications.
>>> Should it?
>>
>> X applications rely on X to be running. If X stops running then the X
>> applications will stop running to (but the non X ones won't). Just like
>> with Windows - if the window manager (or whatever the equivalent is
>> called)
>> dies, then all running apps would die too I would expect.
>> --
>
> No, they wouldn't -- not in Vista and not in Winodws 7. Maybe Linux can
> learn something there.

What's a bsod impossible?

Bobs wrote:
> On Aug 26, 12:51 pm, Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
>> impossible wrote:
>>
>>> "Allistar" <b...@c.com> wrote in message
>>> news: ...
>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>> http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/w...-ever-grow-911
>>>>> "The bottom line: Linux is still too hyperactive for its own good. Its
>>>>> development process is plagued by false starts, half-completed
>>>>> initiatives, and a desperate need to please way too many interested
>>>>> parties. In other words, Linux is a teenager. And until it grows up and
>>>>> takes responsibility for the basics -- like providing a stable windowing
>>>>> environment -- it'll never be taken seriously by IT."
>>>> I'm "IT" and I take it seriously. I find the windowing environment I use
>>>> to
>>>> be quite stable.
>>>> --
>>> Hmmm...."quite stable". Like this, you mean?
>> http://www.osnews.com/story/21999/Ed...rn_a_Lot_from_...
>>
>>
>>
>>> "And here we see why the X.org stack is a steaming pile of dog poo. VLC
>>> was using the XVideo output, which is what it defaults to. Apparently, the
>>> resize operating crashed XVideo. Which crashed X.org. And as all you
>>> educated Linux geeks know but some of you might want to forget: if X.org
>>> crashes - so do all of your applications. "
>> I've never had that problem before. And "crashing all of your applications"
>> should be "crashing all of your X applications".
>> --
>> A.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> LOL - that's terrible design. Holy crap, so if a graphics driver fails
> it shuts down anything that is using it? What the hell.

Windows has crashed for some guy somewhere too. guess its a big pile of poo.

CAN WE GET SOME ADULTS IN HERE FOR ****S SAKE !!!!!!!

"victor" <> wrote in message
news:h7280h$1hq$...
> Bobs wrote:
>> On Aug 26, 12:51 pm, Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Allistar" <b...@c.com> wrote in message
>>>> news: ...
>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/w...-ever-grow-911
>>>>>> "The bottom line: Linux is still too hyperactive for its own good.
>>>>>> Its
>>>>>> development process is plagued by false starts, half-completed
>>>>>> initiatives, and a desperate need to please way too many interested
>>>>>> parties. In other words, Linux is a teenager. And until it grows up
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> takes responsibility for the basics -- like providing a stable
>>>>>> windowing
>>>>>> environment -- it'll never be taken seriously by IT."
>>>>> I'm "IT" and I take it seriously. I find the windowing environment I
>>>>> use
>>>>> to
>>>>> be quite stable.
>>>>> --
>>>> Hmmm...."quite stable". Like this, you mean?
>>> http://www.osnews.com/story/21999/Ed...rn_a_Lot_from_...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> "And here we see why the X.org stack is a steaming pile of dog poo. VLC
>>>> was using the XVideo output, which is what it defaults to. Apparently,
>>>> the
>>>> resize operating crashed XVideo. Which crashed X.org. And as all you
>>>> educated Linux geeks know but some of you might want to forget: if
>>>> X.org
>>>> crashes - so do all of your applications. "
>>> I've never had that problem before. And "crashing all of your
>>> applications"
>>> should be "crashing all of your X applications".
>>> --
>>> A.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> LOL - that's terrible design. Holy crap, so if a graphics driver fails
>> it shuts down anything that is using it? What the hell.
>
> Windows has crashed for some guy somewhere too. guess its a big pile of
> poo.
>
> CAN WE GET SOME ADULTS IN HERE FOR ****S SAKE !!!!!!!

In denial, I see.

"Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
news:h727oa$m9i$...
> impossible wrote:
>>
>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
>> news: ...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
>>>> news: ...
>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
>>>>>> news: ...
>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/w...-ever-grow-911
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The bottom line: Linux is still too hyperactive for its own good.
>>>>>>>> Its
>>>>>>>> development process is plagued by false starts, half-completed
>>>>>>>> initiatives, and a desperate need to please way too many interested
>>>>>>>> parties. In other words, Linux is a teenager. And until it grows up
>>>>>>>> and takes responsibility for the basics -- like providing a stable
>>>>>>>> windowing
>>>>>>>> environment -- it'll never be taken seriously by IT."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm "IT" and I take it seriously. I find the windowing environment I
>>>>>>> use to
>>>>>>> be quite stable.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmmm...."quite stable". Like this, you mean?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> http://www.osnews.com/story/21999/Ed...ista_Windows_7
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "And here we see why the X.org stack is a steaming pile of dog poo.
>>>>>> VLC
>>>>>> was using the XVideo output, which is what it defaults to.
>>>>>> Apparently,
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> resize operating crashed XVideo. Which crashed X.org. And as all you
>>>>>> educated Linux geeks know but some of you might want to forget: if
>>>>>> X.org
>>>>>> crashes - so do all of your applications. "
>>>>>
>>>>> I've never had that problem before.
>>>>
>>>> Does this always have to be about you, Allistar? Try to imagine a world
>>>> in
>>>> which many things happen that you don't actually get to experience
>>>> yourself. In this case, count yourself lucky.
>>>
>>> I'm merely commenting on my own experiences. What experiences do you
>>> have on
>>> the stability of window managers in Linux?
>>>
>>
>> I don't need direct experience with a system to understand why it's
>> unstable and why I wouldn't want to use it. Not since I learned to read.
>>
>>>>> And "crashing all of your applications"
>>>>> should be "crashing all of your X applications".
>>>>
>>>> Well, actually it **shouldn't** be crashing all your X applications.
>>>> Should it?
>>>
>>> X applications rely on X to be running. If X stops running then the X
>>> applications will stop running to (but the non X ones won't). Just like
>>> with Windows - if the window manager (or whatever the equivalent is
>>> called)
>>> dies, then all running apps would die too I would expect.
>>> --
>>
>> No, they wouldn't -- not in Vista and not in Winodws 7. Maybe Linux can
>> learn something there.
>
> What's a bsod impossible?

I don;t know. Does Linux blue-screen when the windowing system fails?