Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
sigh.sigh.Posted Nov 9, 2012 8:09 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302)In reply to: sigh. by Duncan Parent article: Seigo: ending the cults of personality in free software
Strangely, I actually agree with you here. Just because I think there should be one Linux desktop, doesn't mean interchangeable parts cannot be used to run it or that it should not be customisable.
(Log in to post comments)
sigh. Posted Nov 9, 2012 10:52 UTC (Fri) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402) [Link]
"Just because I think there should be one Linux desktop"
It's not that anyone who believes this is just "wrong" - it's more that they clearly don't understand what the "linux desktop" _is_.
It's a bit like believing that humans "should" evolve wings.
Or a bit like wishing butter was a good material for making jet engines out of.
sigh. Posted Nov 9, 2012 21:04 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
Take a snapshot of Linux desktop distros and see how many are not using X. Then think again about what I said and you will find that nobody has to evolve wings to figure this one out.
sigh. Posted Nov 11, 2012 1:07 UTC (Sun) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402) [Link]
Hah.
The reason almost everyone's using X is there's a massive barrier to getting a basic working solution for an alternative. Lots of difficult drivers to write. EDID data to handle. Lots of really difficult event handling code to write. Then you've got to get lots of applications to support drawing onto you - or support the X protocol, which is a huge amount of work. All for something that's reasonably transparent to the majority of users and for most users doesn't greatly affect their day to day workflow.
Writing a simple working alternative desktop is child's play in comparison.
So let's say you get your way and there's "one linux desktop". Well, I don't like it because of reason xyz. So I go and write a different one with a couple of buddies. Bam. There are two linux desktops.
|
|||||||||||||