[ILUG-BOM] Interesting topic

Amol Hatwar amolhatwar@[EMAIL-PROTECTED]
Fri Sep 6 13:27:57 IST 2002

On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 Q u a s i wrote :
>At 02:52 morn 9/5/02 -0600, JTD wrote:
>>the less informed said
>as I was about the only one talking about X, and as I am one of 
>the less informed anyway, let me take this up... '-)
>>1) X gui is bloated
>More precisely, that X GUI suxx ;) - i.e. for the uninitiated, it 
>is not (very) sophisticated.  For those who dont read complete 
>threads, Note I was talking about the GUI only.  Not the 
>underlying architecture.  And further, considering only the *GUI* 
>aspect - I have used X servers available from 96 onwards (svga, 
>accelerated Mach64, XFree86), QNX, BeOS & M$ Windows 
>3.11/95/98/98SE/NT/2000/XP.  The fastest I have used was X+fvwm2 
>(used to run on a 386 without a FPU and with only 8Mb of memory), 
>and it was way, *WAY* better than win 3.11/95.  The 
>flashiest/eyecandy were X+gnome+enlightenment and XP.  The 
>smoothest/fast/crisp/stable I have used is the win98 SE GUI.

The moral of the story ... Different people have different 
choices. As Indians with limited resources, GNU and free (as in 
freedom, not give aways)is the way to go.

Besides the point, one can't really take the digestive system out 
of an animal and say that it suffers from excess wind. X _is_ 
slow, running it standalone wasn't at all envisaged when X was 

However if one wants a GUI on a standalone there's no choice, but 
to use it. People who use it on a N/W think otherwise.



More information about the Linuxers mailing list