Forum > Linux

Installing Lazarus 1.8.4 on Ubuntu 18.04

<< < (20/20)

Fred vS:

--- Quote from: winni on September 04, 2021, 10:20:23 pm ---...

Noboday needed a desktop in those days but anyway X11 was developed.


--- End quote ---

And still living.
People have announced his death for decades, that Wayland is the future but X11 is still there and Wayland is still unstable.


Yes the only answer to Wayland can be: Don't touch it.

A typical answer in the KDE board:

--- Code: Text  [+][-]window.onload = function(){var x1 = document.getElementById("main_content_section"); if (x1) { var x = document.getElementsByClassName("geshi");for (var i = 0; i < x.length; i++) { x[i].style.maxHeight='none'; x[i].style.height = Math.min(x[i].clientHeight+15,306)+'px'; x[i].style.resize = "vertical";}};} ---Maintainer: KDE Team * Not implemented for wayland windows, rules only work for X11 ones* Sounds like a plasmashell crash or freeze, please report the bug* Known bug 
Since years the same answers.


I think Wayland is driven by applying the "its old, so it must be replaced" rule to X11. Most of the performance measures in favour of Wayland compare todays Wayland to X11 as it was back when the Wayland project started. If you factor in how X11 now diverts many calls via XCB, its probably just as fast.

I personally don't understand the security aspects that Wayland claims. I guess Wayland, being more modern code, might end up easier to maintain.

And, to be fair, Wayland on newest release Fedora and Ubuntu does seem to work better (mainly by dropping back to an X11 layer).

And Coherent ?  The very best thing about it by far was the great manual it came with. So much easier than the info command. I don't remember what I paid for it but it could not have been too much, money was pretty scarce back then...



--- Quote from: winni on September 04, 2021, 10:20:23 pm ---The first real 32 bit systems where Unix, VMS and Linux. Noboday needed a desktop in those days but anyway X11 was developed.

--- End quote ---

To be clear, I'm taking about full blown desktop operating systems, not command line interpreters and such. VMS was for minicomputers only. "Linux" wasn't an operating system; it was the development of a kernel built from scratch, modeled after Unix. The earliest distro's were attempts to build an OS around the Linux kernel, incomparable to Unix and OS/2 at the time. The first more mature desktop OSs with a Linux kernel didn't arrive until the late 90s.

I'm not 100% familiar with the history of 32 bits Unix, but I do know that Unix and OS/2 were competing from the very beginning with regards to 32 bits capabilities. I used OS/2 at the time, and yes, there definitely was the need for a graphical desktop or Apple, IBM and Microsoft wouldn't put so much effort in the late 70s and 80s in developing a graphical UI to make things so much easier for office and graphical industry use.

Anyway, Wikipedia confirms the competition between Unix and OS/2 32 bits capabilities, as we can read: "the introduction of the 32-bit Intel 80386, caused Unix to "explode" in popularity for business applications; Xenix, 386/ix, and other Unix systems for the PC-compatible market competed with OS/2 in terms of networking, multiuser support, multitasking, and MS-DOS compatibility."

--- Quote ---Atari ST and Amiga. 5 years before Windows 3.1 and even more before OS/2  (OS half).

--- End quote ---

Are you talking about GUI or 32 bits development? Because Windows 3.0 and 3.1 was just a graphical shell over a 16 bits OS. The very first to develop a GUI I think was Xerox in the early 70s. But that's quite a leap to the 32 bits desktop OSs of the early and mid 90s.

If I'm not mistaken, none of the computers at the time such as the Motorala 68k in the late 70s were 100% 32 bits capable as they still had 16 bit data bus addressing. It wasn't until 1985-1986 with the introduction of the 386DX (which were very expensive at the time) that OSs could be developed to fully run in protected mode allowing 4GB memory adressing. Even in 1995 I could tell the difference between OS/2 and Win95 desktop/multi-tasking performance. OS/2 was clearly superior and much more stable. But IBM wasn't good at marketing and as a result the three main desktop OSs in use since the late 90s are Mac, Linux and Windows.


--- Quote from: Fred vS on September 04, 2021, 10:35:40 pm ---People have announced his death for decades, that Wayland is the future but X11 is still there and Wayland is still unstable.

--- End quote ---

I just installed Manjaro 21 with Gnome the other day. It is my very first experience with Gnome since version 2.32 because I never liked the Gnome 3 concept. It's also my first experience with Wayland and so far it seems pretty stable, but I haven't thoroughly tested it yet with doing graphical stuff.


[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version