21 Jun
2013
21 Jun
'13
7:56 p.m.
On 21/06/13 9:46 AM, David Riley wrote:
On Jun 21, 2013, at 12:09 AM, Toby Thain<toby at
telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
I expected somebody to say that. But is it really true? Xorg is
specifically (afaik) highly modular, which implies that bloat can be
effectively attacked.
Is there some inherent architectural problem with Xorg I'm not aware of?
(I run Xorg on pretty fast hardware, by my standards - a P4 3.2 HT - so
I obviously can't tell from that experience whether it's "bloated" or
not.)
--Toby
On 20/06/13 10:22 PM, Liam Proven wrote:
Well, X.org certainly is. ...
Absolutely. But trying to be all things to all men leads to bloat.
You're not seriously trying to tell us that X11 - which was designed to run, and ran,
on machines older than some people subscribed to this list - is "bloated"?
There are X implementations that don't
try to be all things to all people that aren't.
The modern standard is pretty thick, too; it's like saying that
the modern C++ standard is bloated. Just because it's bloated
doesn't mean you can't implement something that runs fast on small
or old hardware, it just means you need to work with a subset.
- Dave