Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261649AbTI3StS (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:49:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261670AbTI3StE (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:49:04 -0400 Received: from hibernia.jakma.org ([213.79.33.168]:20119 "EHLO hibernia.jakma.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261649AbTI3Ssw (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:48:52 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:48:22 +0100 (IST) From: Paul Jakma X-X-Sender: paul@fogarty.jakma.org To: kartikey bhatt cc: torvalds@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Can't X be elemenated? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: X-NSA: iraq saddam hammas hisballah rabin ayatollah korea vietnam revolt mustard gas MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, kartikey bhatt wrote: > 1st. X is bloat. This isnt true. [paul@fogarty paul]$ cat /proc/`pidof X`/status | grep ^Vm VmSize: 47700 kB VmLck: 0 kB VmRSS: 22580 kB VmData: 25540 kB VmStk: 72 kB VmExe: 1488 kB VmLib: 1580 kB X is actually quite tiny, ~3MB of exe+lib. The data size is due, vastly, to the X /clients/ using the server (in the above case RH9 GNOME + windowmaker + xchat2 + galeon + few xterms). Here's Xipaq (tinyX handheld X server): ~ $ cat /proc/`pidof Xipaq`/status | grep ^Vm VmSize: 5072 kB VmLck: 0 kB VmRSS: 3164 kB VmData: 1788 kB VmStk: 16 kB VmExe: 848 kB VmLib: 2028 kB That's Xipaq, exe is smaller, but libs are bigger, balances out to ~3MB again. However, the data segment is much smaller, < 2MB compared to > 25MB for the desktop case. The handheld runs the GPE (http://gpe.handhelds.org) environment. So perhaps you could come to the conclusion that 'X' (in the X server sense) is not bloat, but that the /clients/ on modern desktops are? > Though it's good for server environments. For desktop pcs it's too > heavy. You are misinformed. See above. > 2nd. It's process based client/server architecture is a bottleneck. Why do you think so? For large amounts of data, X clients can use shared memory. Further, even if they must transfer data (ie pixmaps/pics) across the socket connection, the X server can cache it, and the client can use it by reference. (ie a once off cost). Also, local X clients use unix sockets - blazingly fast. > It's not as interactive as is supposed to be. Have you tried 2.6.0-test6? The interactivity problems were the kernel's fault more than that of 'X'. > 3rd. Most important. I can't impress or convince my > window(crash)(TM) user friends, relatives (who saw X running on my > pc) to use Linux. You wont impress /anyone/ with "just X" (ie just the X server) - cause all you'll get is a tiled background of tiny X logos and an X mouse pointer. > 4th. I want to see desktop being ruled by Linux. "X" isnt the obstacle. To be able to constructively criticise something you first need to /understand/ it. You dont. Most of you what you complain about, bloat and heavyness, is due to the desktop environment - not X itself. Try running GPE (http://gpe.handhelds.org) or (easier/actually practical too for a desktop) Xfce (http://www.xfce.org) Finally, this isnt a kernel problem. regards, -- Paul Jakma paul@clubi.ie paul@jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A warning: do not ever send email to spam@dishone.st Fortune: Real wealth can only increase. -- R. Buckminster Fuller - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/