[owl57]

nobody ever writes the book about a language/paradigm's downsides

Indeed. One can argue that books like "optimizing X" or "secure X" are about ways to easily write slow or insecure code in X, but this is somewhat narrow. Is there never enough demand for a broader book on downsides of X?

[DonHopkins]

Bertrand Meyer's book on Eiffel was all about the downsides of C++.

And then there's the Unix-Hater's Handbook...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unix-Haters_Handbook

I wrote a whole chapter about the downsides of X -- do you think there's a need for a broader book? ;)

https://medium.com/@donhopkins/the-x-windows-disaster-128d39...

[severine]

> I wrote a whole chapter about the downsides of X

I lol'ed 6-8 times... Still, I have to say that I'm loving my distros lately; distro maintainers, you rule!

Some typos in the article:

eents/events client an/client can because it the/because it solved? the tires/tries ore dump/core dump trwe/tree piel/pixel resulution/resolution ertain/certain N ot/Not screens een have/screens have

[mcguire]

The one where you demonstrated that you don't know the difference between a client and a server? :-)

[DonHopkins]

How's it "not knowing the difference" to explain that the usage of the terms client and server switched over time, in the sense of which is local and which is remote?

An xterm client running on a VAX mainframe connects to an X11 server running on a Sun workstation: the X11 client is remote, the X11 server is local.

A web browser client running on a phone connects to a web server running in the cloud: the web client is local, the web server is remote.

Right?

[mcguire]

Exactly! I, too, used to live in an office next to a machine room full of "web clients"! :-D

(Actually, I'm one of those deluded fools who claim a "server" provides a "service" to one or more "clients", who make "requests". Yeah, I know, but I figure somebody has to keep the joke funny.)

[DonHopkins]

Here's how Jim Fulton (who wrote the early graphics drivers for X6) explains it:

https://www.quora.com/profile/Jim-Fulton

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-X-Windows-architecture-clie...

>Given it's roots, X naturally used the technically-correct terms to describe its major components: the portion that abstracted display and input hardware into a service that could be used by other programs was called the "display server"; the portion that made use of those services was called the "display client." This later caused endless confusion who thought that "server" was a synonym for "big computer" (file server, database server, etc.) and "client" meant "small computer" (diskless client, etc.). Who knows, maybe it would have been easier had they been called "application server" and "application client" but that revisionist history.

Also interesting:

>Ultimately, the pendulum swung back with the advent of Web 2.0 technology and mobile devices. Now, we take it for granted that applications can run anywhere in the network and be accessed by any type of device. While X is primitive compared to JavaScript and HTML5 (whose ability to push computational tasks over the network into the display device were inspired by Java and NeWS), X did lay the initial groundwork. It also proved that an open source model could work for in business environments. Not too shabby for a technology that will soon be hitting its 30th anniversary.

>Jim Fulton, alumnus of Project Athena, the MIT X Consortium, Cognition (first commercial use of X on DOS) and Network Computing Devices (leading X terminal vendor)

[AzzieElbab]

Loled. I used to do phone support for x11 servers for pcs. This terminology confused people to no end

[KirinDave]

There are tons, but we really need to ask if any of this is a fair topic for Dependent Typing, which has only emerged from pi-calculus musings on paper to compilers that can do more than prove simple structural recursion.

It's like seeing a photo of a baby and asking why there isn't a service to provide police records for babies, because you "just want to be careful, you know?"