Will desktop Linux ever grow up?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by impossible, Aug 26, 2009.

  1. impossible

    impossible Guest

    http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/will-desktop-linux-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."
     
    impossible, Aug 26, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > impossible wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/will-desktop-linux-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/Editorial_X_Could_Learn_a_Lot_from_Vista_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. "
     
    impossible, Aug 26, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > impossible wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/will-desktop-linux-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/Editorial_X_Could_Learn_a_Lot_from_Vista_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?
     
    impossible, Aug 26, 2009
    #3
  4. impossible

    Bobs Guest

    On Aug 26, 12:51 pm, Allistar <> wrote:
    > impossible wrote:
    >
    > > "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >> impossible wrote:

    >
    > >>>http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/will-desktop-linux-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/Editorial_X_Could_Learn_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.
     
    Bobs, Aug 26, 2009
    #4
  5. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "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/will-desktop-linux-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/Editorial_X_Could_Learn_a_Lot_from_Vista_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.
     
    impossible, Aug 26, 2009
    #5
  6. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "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 <> wrote:
    >>> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >>>>news:...
    >>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>>http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/will-desktop-linux-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/Editorial_X_Could_Learn_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, Aug 26, 2009
    #6
  7. impossible

    Sailor Sam Guest

    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/will-desktop-linux-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/Editorial_X_Could_Learn_a_Lot_from_Vista_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?
     
    Sailor Sam, Aug 26, 2009
    #7
  8. impossible

    victor Guest

    Bobs wrote:
    > On Aug 26, 12:51 pm, Allistar <> wrote:
    >> impossible wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>> http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/will-desktop-linux-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/Editorial_X_Could_Learn_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 FUCKS SAKE !!!!!!!
     
    victor, Aug 26, 2009
    #8
  9. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "victor" <> wrote in message
    news:h7280h$1hq$-september.org...
    > Bobs wrote:
    >> On Aug 26, 12:51 pm, Allistar <> wrote:
    >>> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>> http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/will-desktop-linux-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/Editorial_X_Could_Learn_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 FUCKS SAKE !!!!!!!


    In denial, I see.
     
    impossible, Aug 26, 2009
    #9
  10. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    news:h727oa$m9i$-september.org...
    > 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/will-desktop-linux-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/Editorial_X_Could_Learn_a_Lot_from_Vista_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?
     
    impossible, Aug 26, 2009
    #10
  11. impossible

    AD. Guest

    On Aug 26, 12:08 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/will-desktop-linux-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."


    Who the **** cares
     
    AD., Aug 26, 2009
    #11
  12. impossible

    Sailor Sam Guest

    impossible wrote:
    >
    > "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    > news:h727oa$m9i$-september.org...
    >> 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/will-desktop-linux-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/Editorial_X_Could_Learn_a_Lot_from_Vista_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?


    I'd like to be able to answer that, but I've never had a windowing
    system fail on me.


    However google was helpful with my question:
    http://www.google.co.nz/search?sour...od vista&btnG=Google Search&meta=lr=&aq=f&oq=
    (Note the third link)

    http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&q=bsod windows 7&btnG=Search&meta=
     
    Sailor Sam, Aug 26, 2009
    #12
  13. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "AD." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Aug 26, 12:08 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/will-desktop-linux-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."


    > Who the **** cares


    So far, more than the number of people who have ever taken in an interest
    in anything you've said.
     
    impossible, Aug 26, 2009
    #13
  14. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    news:h728jf$o5h$-september.org...
    > impossible wrote:
    >>
    >> "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    >> news:h727oa$m9i$-september.org...
    >>> 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/will-desktop-linux-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/Editorial_X_Could_Learn_a_Lot_from_Vista_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?

    >
    > I'd like to be able to answer that, but I've never had a windowing system
    > fail on me.
    >
    >
    > However google was helpful with my question:
    > http://www.google.co.nz/search?sour...od vista&btnG=Google Search&meta=lr=&aq=f&oq=
    > (Note the third link)
    >


    Hmmm.. you're looking desperate with forum posts from June 2006, before
    Vista was even released. And what's that other site? vistabluescreen.com?
    Good one, troll.

    > http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&q=bsod windows 7&btnG=Search&meta=


    More desperation yet. You do realize that Windows 7 won't be released until
    October.

    Did you seriously think you were going to get away with another Larry
    D'Loser con job here?

    Slink away now before you get hurt.
     
    impossible, Aug 26, 2009
    #14
  15. impossible

    Sailor Sam Guest

    impossible wrote:
    >
    > "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    > news:h728jf$o5h$-september.org...
    >> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:h727oa$m9i$-september.org...
    >>>> 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/will-desktop-linux-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/Editorial_X_Could_Learn_a_Lot_from_Vista_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?

    >>
    >> I'd like to be able to answer that, but I've never had a windowing
    >> system fail on me.
    >>
    >>
    >> However google was helpful with my question:
    >> http://www.google.co.nz/search?sour...od vista&btnG=Google Search&meta=lr=&aq=f&oq=
    >>
    >> (Note the third link)
    >>

    >
    > Hmmm.. you're looking desperate with forum posts from June 2006, before
    > Vista was even released. And what's that other site?
    > vistabluescreen.com? Good one, troll.
    >


    As opposed to the link you started with?


    >> http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&q=bsod windows 7&btnG=Search&meta=

    >
    > More desperation yet.


    Desperation?

    > You do realize that Windows 7 won't be released
    > until October.
    >


    October is just over 5 weeks away, are you telling me that the bsod will
    not exist then?

    > Did you seriously think you were going to get away with another Larry
    > D'Loser con job here?
    >

    con job? You were the one who claimed not to know what a bsod is.
    > Slink away now before you get hurt.


    Hurt?
     
    Sailor Sam, Aug 26, 2009
    #15
  16. impossible

    AD. Guest

    On Aug 26, 3:05 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > > Who the **** cares

    >
    > So far, more than the number of people who have ever taken in an  interest
    > in anything you've said.


    Yeah, maybe I should start posting inane trolls so I can be as popular
    as you and Larry are.

    Your posts are the mirror image of Larrys (hence the "who the ****
    cares" reply). It seems you both were conjoint twins joined at the
    head. After the operation to separate you, you both ended up with one
    eye and half a brain.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Aug 26, 2009
    #16
  17. impossible

    Gordon Guest

    On 2009-08-26, impossible <> wrote:
    > http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/will-desktop-linux-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."
    >


    Darn, are we back in 1970 something.

    Ms Penguin does get lost at times and goes right into the jungle, gets lost
    and realises that that was not the way to the fish in the sea.

    The X Window envioronment has been crash free for me in 15 odd years of
    using it.

    Pleasing interested parties, nope.

    a) Lets try this and see if it flies

    no it does not for them, meanwhile some woman has grabbed the code and
    after some alteration it flies, but not soars. Now more people join in.

    b) Is this not the $$$ world we have. Plaese the customer and $$$$ in ones
    wallet.
     
    Gordon, Aug 26, 2009
    #17
  18. impossible

    Carnations Guest

    On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:02:09 +1200, Sailor Sam wrote:

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

    >
    > I'd like to be able to answer that, but I've never had a windowing
    > system fail on me.


    Neither have I.

    The only time the OS on my desktop box has ever given me any problems is when It had hardware
    failure.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Carnations, Aug 26, 2009
    #18
  19. impossible

    victor Guest

    AD. wrote:
    > On Aug 26, 3:05 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >>> Who the **** cares

    >> So far, more than the number of people who have ever taken in an interest
    >> in anything you've said.

    >
    > Yeah, maybe I should start posting inane trolls so I can be as popular
    > as you and Larry are.
    >
    > Your posts are the mirror image of Larrys (hence the "who the ****
    > cares" reply). It seems you both were conjoint twins joined at the
    > head. After the operation to separate you, you both ended up with one
    > eye and half a brain.
    >
    > --
    > Cheers
    > Anton


    flattery will get you nowhere.
     
    victor, Aug 26, 2009
    #19
  20. impossible

    Enkidu Guest

    impossible wrote:

    Are you Lawrence's twin? Separated at birth, one apprenticed to the evil
    empire, the other to the good? Which one is the evil one?

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
    the same old personalities show through.
     
    Enkidu, Aug 26, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. paul hudson

    DRUMMERS IN MONKSTOWN GROW ON TREES

    paul hudson, Jun 29, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    438
    slylittlei
    Jun 30, 2003
  2. Brian

    How big can these cacti grow?

    Brian, Apr 8, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,375
    gruffydd
    Apr 12, 2004
  3. Lucas Tam

    How do you get really big fresh looking roses to grow

    Lucas Tam, Apr 16, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    389
  4. Imhotep

    Sony BMG's copy-protection problems grow

    Imhotep, Nov 20, 2005, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    435
    Imhotep
    Nov 20, 2005
  5. Replies:
    13
    Views:
    731
    Paul Heslop
    Mar 19, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page