Re: Can't X be elemenated?
From: Paul Jakma (paul_at_clubi.ie)
Date: 09/30/03
- Previous message: Randy.Dunlap: "Re: Cosmetic error: 2.4.20 bootup and >2^31 sector SCSI devices"
- In reply to: kartikey bhatt: "Can't X be elemenated?"
- Next in thread: Krishna Akella: "Re: Can't X be elemenated?"
- Reply: Krishna Akella: "Re: Can't X be elemenated?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:48:22 +0100 (IST) To: kartikey bhatt <kartik_me@hotmail.com>
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/
- Previous message: Randy.Dunlap: "Re: Cosmetic error: 2.4.20 bootup and >2^31 sector SCSI devices"
- In reply to: kartikey bhatt: "Can't X be elemenated?"
- Next in thread: Krishna Akella: "Re: Can't X be elemenated?"
- Reply: Krishna Akella: "Re: Can't X be elemenated?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
