|
|
|
|
|
|
by catblast
2222 days ago
|
|
|
Building on X gets you very little other than compatibility with the X ecosystem - something that had little to no value to Apple - they certainly didn't want to promote OSX as some kind of Xserver in place of writing quality Mac apps. Note that with current X, HiDPI and multi-monitor and tear-free experience still have problems and they are handled via a morass of legacy extensions of varying design quality (this is aside from the drivers issue)-- when OS X was started, none of these existed except maybe DBE and a nascent RANDR (there was no COMPOSITE, no RENDER, RANDR vs very primitive), I think there was the Xinerama crap that no one uses anymore because it is terrible. So they would have had to develop that, for what benefit? What does X get you out of the box? A drawing model that was outdated even by 1995 standards. And network transparency? Everytime these discussions come up, somebody brings this up, and I wonder what drugs they are on. The love by some for the X network model has always baffled me, because it is terrible - it has virtually no practical usability for modern drawing models and compositing, and the worst is it isn't robust - lose your TCP connection, goodbye session! X hits #1 and #2 of the "Fallacies of distributed computing" pretty hard. RDP, VNC, SPICE are what we use today, for very good reasons. |
|
|
"..., Richie reminded the audience that Steve Jobs stood at the same podium a few years back and announced that X was brain-dead and would soon die.
"He was half-right," Ritchie said. "Sometimes when you fill a vacuum, it still sucks."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22502125