Re: [OT] Why does X need so much CPU power?
On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 07:00, csj wrote:
> At Mon, 1 Sep 2003 19:32:19 -0700,
> Marc Wilson wrote:
> >
> > Feel free to hit 'd' now, if you like, what follows is an
> > opinion piece that apparently no one at all agrees with, given
> > the state of the community....
>
> I'm sorry. I pressed the wrong key.
>
> > On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 12:20:24AM +0200, Nicos Gollan wrote:
> > > IMO the whole X(free) system needs a healthy kick in the
> > > butt. It's one of the main factors in keeping Linux away from
> > > the desktop, not just lacking in performance and features,
> > > but also a royal PITA to configure with new problems cropping
> > > up every five minutes.
>
> Some ex-X coders have already forked XFree86. There's already an
> established dri project at sourceforge which is responsible for
> creating the more bleeding edge 3D support for X (note the use of the
> relative "more").
>
> > Uh, no, what's keeping Linux away from the desktop is the lack
> > of APPLICATIONS. Joe Public couldn't care less about X, or
> > anything else, as long as it works. The idiot gamers aside, X
> > is plenty for what Joe Public needs in a graphical environment
> > as long as he can move windows around and open and close them
> > when he needs to.
>
> True. All those people doing meaty 3D work with Linux are using
> proprietary applications that are so expensive they can afford to
> be cross-platform.
>
> > The gamers, of course, will never be satisfied until things
> > have come full-circle and they're writing directly to the
> > hardware again, without any abstraction layers at all in the
> > way.
> >
> > But as long as there aren't equivalents to Photoshop (and I'm
> > sorry, but Gimp ain't it, not while it doesn't do something
> > basic like CYMK), InDesign or the equivalent (and TeX ain't it
> > either), Office (yes, OOo may be there someday, but it isn't
> > NOW), and an easy to use database (and the SQL server of your
> > choice CERTAINLY isn't it), along with many other
> > applications... Linux will be incredibly useful to the geeks
> > and not at all to Joe Public.
>
> Indesign, a program for Joe Public?! Come on, how many Joe and
> Jane Public's are there who would be interested in doing
> high-quality layouts for outputs to color-separting film setters?
> We don't need In-Design. We need (gasp) M$ Publisher!
>
Thats quite true, most people have no use for 99% of what even the gimp
can do, and those that need more don't have the rest of the options. A
mac is probably a better solution for those, because if you do need
photoshop you probably also need freehand/after effects/etc which don't
exist at all under linux (and iirc not all of them also under M$ )
What Joe public needs is a striped down version of gimp thats easier to
use with some nice scripts that create fancy web buttons, gif animations
and such.
> BTW there's already WYSIWYG DTP under *n*x. Scribus. I say it's
> already achieved parity with PageMaker version 5.0 (or at least
> 4.0). That would be something like 8 years behind bleeding
> edge. But for most users willing to learn the language of
> professional DTP that would be enough.
>
> > Never mind the programming tools, the umpteen scripting
> > languages, and all the rest. Joe Public doesn't need or want
> > any of that. For crying out loud, we actually push the fact
> > that Linux ships with gcc and Windows doesn't as a *benefit*!
>
> But it is.
>
> > And I count myself among the geeks. I use Linux in my home
> > because I want to, and I'm willing to jump through quite a
> > number of hoops to create an environment that exactly fits ME.
> > To change things to fit ME. To adapt things that weren't
> > necessarily intended for what I want to use them for to, well,
> > do what I want them to do.
> >
> > Joe Public isn't. No, worse... he WON'T. And you can't make
> > him. And all the rants about how Linux is about to take over
> > the desktop, should take over the desktop, would take over the
> > desktop if only MS wasn't out there sticking a knife in
> > people's back... won't change that.
>
> No, I think the message is that over-priced, one-vendor fits-all
> software is, as far as Joe Public is concerned, on the way out.
> You miss the mark with OpenOffice.org. There are actually more
> M$ users of OO.o than users in a *n*x environment (you can
> include the proprietary Unices in the mix)
>
> Why should it be Linux? It could be Openoffice.org plus one or
> the other free OS's around. And Debian is attempting to support
> at least three kinds of them.
>
> > I'm sure that now I'm going to be gifted with umpteen
> > slashcrap-esque rants about how wonderful Linux is, and how
> > everyone's lives are immesurably enriched by it, and how
> > they've been "MS-free" (like that's something worth worrying
> > about) for just, well, forever, and how many people they've
> > personally saved and led to Linux. Well, forget it. It's
> > irrelevant.
>
> I don't think Linux is all that wonderful. After all, it's just
> the kernel. Gnome and KDE can both run under BSD. There's a
> Solaris port of Gnome.
>
> > Oooh, oooh, Windows, so evil, never ever ever use it, after all
> > Joe Public might get some work done without having to worry
> > about how the box is put together. Much better for Joe Public
> > to spin uselessly in a corner trying to glue tools together and
> > understand arcana.
>
> There are actually several studies which show that a properly
> configured Gnome or KDE environment is as easy to use as, at the
> very least Win9X. And most users are still stuck on that
> technologically inferior Windows version. So what's preventing
> the switch. I suspect it's the plain inertia. You use what
> you're used to. This is the same reason most people still insist
> on an Intel inside, when they can have the Intel experience at a
> fractiona of the cost.
>
There are two major problems with linux entering the home market. First,
is the public image of linux. People see it as a geek only OS and thus
are afraid to try it.
Second is the fact that most people just use the OS they get with their
computer and are afraid to try and replace it. Plus, they already paid
for the M$ license (even if forcefully/unknowingly) so why switch to a
free one after you already paid for something. Same thing with macs/osX,
where its even harder to get linux to work.
Linux need to change its public image and start coming pre-installed.
There is also the problem of too much options. Unlike M$ where people
exactly what program does a given job, on linux there are 10, and when
there are so many its actually sometimes harder finding the right one
for you or even finding what programs there are to do a given job.
Too much choice can sometime be as much a liability as not enough (as
much as I like the options).
> > Yes, I'm sure. I must absolutely hate open-source, and all it
> > stands for. I must be an evil tool that can't think for
> > himself. How DARE I suggest that using our baby is anything
> > less than religious nirvana? Save it... you're wrong and I'm
> > not interested anyway. Do you advocates ever LISTEN to
> > yourselves? <spit>
> >
> > Forget it. Our opinions don't matter. We're already part of
> > the hive. Man on the street, HIS opinion matters. He doesn't
> > want our next whiz-bang window manager, he doesn't want to know
> > how technically advanced Gnome is, he doesn't want to know how
> > much eye candy he can pump onto the screen with KDE. He wants
> > to get the work done. And he wants to be able to share that
> > work with OTHER PEOPLE.
>
> s/hive/matrix/
>
> It seems that the loud open source and free software lobby,
> underfunded as it is, has has some impact on some local and Third
> World governments. It has opened eyes to the possibility of a
> world without Microsoft.
>
But it has scared people off linux as a difficult to use OS.
> > And as an example, the fact that he can take TeX, and produce
> > absolutely beautiful output (and I'm learning TeX now, and it
> > certainly can) is of no relevance to him as long as he has to
> > learn to speak gibberish in order to use it.
> >
> > <sigh> I *actually* got told the other day that Linux didn't
> > need anything like Word, because it had TeX. Amazing.
>
> Who told you that? For a long time we've had LyX.
>
For people who don't know what they are doing, or that are used to
WYSIWYG, lyx/tex is no alternative to word like programs.
As much as I don't like then and that I think lyx is much easier to use
and produces better results for most thing, and is actually the only
options for me, since writing mathematical papers with word/OOo is next
to imposibl,. It can be daunting to use. I got my girlfriend to try it,
and although she loved the output she went back to word since lyx's
concept was too difficult for her. I didn't even attempt pure latex.
Don't take from this that I don't like linux. I think its much better
then M$ and there are no alternatives for me for some of the things that
it offer, but its exactly those things that make, at list for the
moment, to be a non-option for the Joe-Public m$ user.
--
Micha Feigin
michf@math.tau.ac.il
Reply to: