Bryan Moss wrote:
> > [Linux] would be a huge improvement over the whole world
> > using Windows.
>
> Why?
I don't think this list is the place to recount the many reasons
Unix sucks much less than Windows. Not a very forward looking
discussion, and one that can be found repeated zillions of
times on the net. See <http://www.unix-vs-nt.org/> for one
perspective. And yes, the fact that there are non-proprietary
implementations of Unix is a major reason why its widespread
use would be preferred by me to Windows even disregarding
all technical issues.
Now, invoking Godwin's law, Bill Gates is powerful, Hitler
was powerful, you appear to be defending Windows, therefore
you're a Nazi sympathizer. The end.
> Both, they're interrelated. To do anything useful with the
> UI requires changes to the architecture. And vice versa.
They aren't interrelated at all (well, perhaps they are in
the case of Windows, and that's a major problem). Unix doesn't
require what is usually thought of as a UI at all. All I
need is port 23 (telnet) or some more secure alternative and
I can do 100% of what I need to do day to day on a Unix box,
including running any graphical applications remotely.
X has "won" the Unix display for the most part, but it has
been clearly demonstrated that X can be replaced with no
changes to the Unix architecture. See Display Postscript
systems (e.g., NextStep and NeWS) for example.
X itself is a very low level set of primitives, and wildly
divergement UIs may be built on top of it, again with no
architecture changes. See the zillions of X toolkits,
window managers, and desktop projects for undeniable
evidence.
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:04:50 MDT