Re: Standard way of graphics in Linux
- From: Bernd Strieder <strieder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:12:50 +0200
Hello,
Herbert Kleebauer wrote:
Exactly that's the problem, the kernel is responsible for the low
level stuff but doesn't provide any support for graphics output
(as far as I understand it). This is done by add-ons, but the problem
is, there seems to be no (or better many) standard for this add-on.
I don't think Linux will be able to compete with Windows on the end
user desktop market as long as there is no reference system for a
Linux desktop system specified.
We have X with a wealth of APIs making access easier than using X
directly, even cross platform ones. See glib, see Qt, see wxWidgets.
Under Windows the situation is basically similar, you have to make your
choice as well, whether using Visual or Delphi, or whatever.
It can't be more than perhaps about one hundred lines of code using any
of the available APIs until you have a full screen where you can draw
at your will onto under X11, using powerful primitives.
And a program (graphic + sound)
designed for such a reference system must be executable on any current
and future x86 Linux system which calls itself a "Linux Desktop
System" without recompilation (I still can execute 20 years old DOS
binaries in XP).
You will have problems with many old applications. Some old apps
compiled with Turbo Pascal even crash because new CPUs are too fast.
You cannot rely at all on old DOS apps running. Many old apps are
running only if security features are overridden. I think the attitude
towards compatibility which has always been hard to fulfill by 100 % is
the single biggest reason for not coming up earlier with real solutions
for the wealth of security problems of windows.
Not recompiling has many disadvantages, no optimizations for newer CPUs,
no use of improvements to the compiler regarding security. Facing this,
the promise of running without recompiling becomes pretty moot. If
performance and security are no concern, you could use shell scripts,
they are portable.
My current feeling is, Linux is a nice server system
(I have a Linux 1.1.18 continuos running since 12 years now on a
486DX2 as an FTP server without any problem) but as a desktop system
it can't compete with Windows.
There are many people where Linux works good enough as a desktop system.
You seem to deny this with the only argument that it is not possible to
take a die-hart DOS assembler app from 20 years ago running it under
Linux. There have been incompatible changes in GNU and Linux from time
to time, but they were due to real technical improvements, not
marketing, so I and many other Linux users can accept it easily.
Bernd Strieder
.
- References:
- Standard way of graphics in Linux
- From: Herbert Kleebauer
- Re: Standard way of graphics in Linux
- From: Bjoern Schliessmann
- Re: Standard way of graphics in Linux
- From: Herbert Kleebauer
- Re: Standard way of graphics in Linux
- From: Wolfgang Draxinger
- Re: Standard way of graphics in Linux
- From: Herbert Kleebauer
- Standard way of graphics in Linux
- Prev by Date: Re: user-mode application detect USB device
- Next by Date: Re: Standard way of graphics in Linux
- Previous by thread: Re: Standard way of graphics in Linux
- Next by thread: Re: Standard way of graphics in Linux
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
