×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Who Needs XFree86?

Hemos posted more than 10 years ago | from the text-only-please dept.

Software 269

An anonymous reader writes "With this review Linux and Main says it is kicking off a project to put together a Linux machine that operates entirely in the console, including applications, without the user ever having to enter anything at a command prompt. The review is of Twin, the very cool windowing environment for the console. Applications will be added over time, and readers are invited to nominate their favorite little-known console applications."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

269 comments

Your moma needs (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5879974)

my first cock in her ass!

That's right muthafuckas!

Re:Your moma needs (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5880128)

my first cock in her ass!

You mean you have a second cock?!

Just like windows (1, Funny)

alephnull42 (202254) | more than 10 years ago | (#5879975)

Linux machine that operates entirely in the console, including applications, without the user ever having to enter anything at a command prompt

Sounds like Windows NT/XP/ to me.

OMG, there will be nothing stopping normal people using Linux if this comes true...

huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5879988)

operates entirely in the console,
that'll keep 'em from using it, I bet

Re:Just like windows (2, Insightful)

kasperd (592156) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880156)

Sounds like Windows NT/XP/ to me.

Maybe it sounds like it, but it certainly doesn't look like it. To me it looks a lot better than it sounds, but it is certainly not a replacement for X. It is more intended as something between X and the command line. More user interface than a command line and less bloated than X. It looks quite a lot like Turbo Vision, which is one of the nicer textmode based interfaces. Now they just need a lot of useful applications. I don't know how much attention they will get, neither how much they deserve. Sure it looks nice, but I don't want to pull too many resources from X or the command line.

Re:Just like windows (1)

Talez (468021) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880185)

I'll bite.

Windows XP doesn't use DOS. Neither does 2K.

They have a command interpreter and a recovery console but they aren't the base the OS is laid on.

HAND.

X (and other Window systems) reduce productivity (4, Interesting)

eludom (83727) | more than 10 years ago | (#5879976)

In my experience, firing up a windowing system
tends to reduce productivity. A simple text
based console app allows you to focus w/o
disractions.

In years past, I knew of someone who used
emacs as his login shell :-)

---eludom

Re:X (and other Window systems) reduce productivit (5, Funny)

ahknight (128958) | more than 10 years ago | (#5879985)

In years past, I knew of someone who used emacs as his login shell :-)

I don't know what's more frightening, that he did or that you can.

Re:X (and other Window systems) reduce productivit (5, Funny)

arvindn (542080) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880016)

Obligatory:

The only thing he found wanting in emacs was a good text editor :)

Re:X (and other Window systems) reduce productivit (1, Funny)

edgrale (216858) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880072)

Obligatory: (also)

So did he end up using Vi? :)

Re:X (and other Window systems) reduce productivit (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5880082)

M-X viper

Step futher? (3, Funny)

Libor Vanek (248963) | more than 10 years ago | (#5879995)

Why not directly boot up Emacs? .-)

Re:Step futher? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5880060)

Emacs maybe an operating system, but it still needs a kernel, so it depends on Linux (gnu/emacs/linux is the system). For Emacs to be Independant, then the HURD kernel must be first finnished as it will of course come with full emacs support.

Re:Step futher? (1)

arvindn (542080) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880187)

Actually, in the 70s AI people built LISP machines [withington.org] (which executed lisp in hardware). I wonder if its possible to get a stripped down emacs with its core reimplemented in lisp to run directly on one of those.

Re:X (and other Window systems) reduce productivit (2, Funny)

yanestra (526590) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880061)

In years past, I knew of someone who used emacs as his login shell :-)
It's a silly idea to use an operating system as a login shell. Why doesn't he boot Emacs directly?

Re:X (and other Window systems) reduce productivit (-1, Redundant)

ErikTheRed (162431) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880080)

Like spending your working hours reading /.? Heh, I'm already feeling sorry for that poor guy's server. His TWIN page had about 800 hits when I went over, and was already over 2,000 when I left 2 minutes later... The joy of instant /. fame...

Re:X (and other Window systems) reduce productivit (4, Insightful)

Advocadus Diaboli (323784) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880140)

In my experience, firing up a windowing system tends to reduce productivity. A simple text based console app allows you to focus w/o disractions.

Let's assume that you are right. But if a simple text based console can improve productivity, then what can a GUI (that means one background image and 12 Xterms) do to your productivity?

Well, the other side of the medal is that in our daily work we are usually forced to do more than one thing at the same time. And for that I really prefer to have some virtual terminals on my graphical desktop, so I can use the power of the text console and multiply that power by using it on several tasks simultaneously.

Re:X (and other Window systems) reduce productivit (2)

khuber (5664) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880167)

You can use jobs/fg/bg/suspend in one console. Virtual terminals are a crutch ;-).

-Kevin

Re:X (and other Window systems) reduce productivit (1)

Realistic_Dragon (655151) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880271)

"In years past, I knew of someone who used
emacs as his login shell :-)"

Was his name RMS by any chance?

Re:X (and other Window systems) reduce productivit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5880296)

If you want to go lisp machinish but don't want to work totally from within emacs, check this out:

Probably a sure way to keep anyone from hacking on your system too - they won't be able to figure out how to do much of anything, if my CS classes are any indication.

http://clisp.sourceforge.net/clash.html

Re:X (and other Window systems) reduce productivit (2, Insightful)

DrXym (126579) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880336)

Well that's you. On the other hand, someone staring at an entirely non-intuitive command prompt for the first time for hours when all they "want to do is play a bloody game and why did they install this piece of shit OS in the first place", might disagree with you. As would anyone wishing to browse the web or anything else inherently graphical.


Personally I'm comfortable in both, but if it's a choice between arsing aroung for hours trying to set up a network, reading the nitpicky details of some config file and switches, or just using the Redhat GUI tool to do it, I know which one I would pick.

kind of neat (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5879978)

it reminds me of the early 286 days just before GEOS game around wayyyy before windows... norton commander looked very much like that (without the adding of applications)

Me? I think X is fine... If I can scale it down to fit on a floppy WITH my kernel and ramfs filesystem (tinyx) then it's perfect for me.

AA support? (5, Funny)

Libor Vanek (248963) | more than 10 years ago | (#5879981)

Does it support AA and alpha chanell? .-)

Yes.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5880002)

.. with aalib. ;)

Re:Yes.. (4, Interesting)

Libor Vanek (248963) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880025)

You know - maybe it's not so perverted after all - if it can use framebuffer and somebody sometime will implement AA into FB... who knows...

This is cool. (2, Insightful)

k03 kalle (669378) | more than 10 years ago | (#5879983)

This is probably one of the coolest things I have seen in a long time. The possibilities are endless.

If you have an older box, you can make it a very serviceable desktop. My only question is, does anyone have any information on the kind of resources it requires?

Re:This is cool. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5880017)

Yeah, especially when you figure you can buy a 10$ 333mhz machine off Ebay that will easily do the trick. Retrograde a whole office full of machines on this and you have yourself a nice little computer lab. Just imagine schools running this being able to save hundreds of thousands of dollars. With windowing text mode, you can run nearly everything you would ever want and have no limit to productivity other than what you impose upon yourself.

Ah memories... (2, Insightful)

miketang16 (585602) | more than 10 years ago | (#5879993)

Reminds me of the old Windows 1.0 days... Looked just like that, except not as advanced. This looks pretty cool/useful,if you're going to be using console. Personally, console always holds a special place in my heart. =D

Re:Ah memories... (4, Insightful)

Richard W.M. Jones (591125) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880114)

Reminds me of the old Windows 1.0 days... Looked just like that, except not as advanced.

Actually it looks very little like Windows 1.0 (speaking as someone who actually used it - for work). Windows 1.0 didn't have overlapping windows, but was graphical. Twin is the opposite way around.

It is very strongly reminiscent of Quarterdeck's DESQview, screenshots circa 1988. It could run textual and graphical apps side by side - pretty revolutionary (in the PeeCee world) for the time.

Rich.

DesqView/X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5880323)

You think I can pick up a copy on LimeWire or Kazaa?

Man, finding this old stuff is harder than getting Dixie Chix songs from the middle 90s.

HAHAHAHAHA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5880003)

Just watch all of the mac fags get up in arms!!!

LOLOLOLOL!!!!

Two questions (4, Insightful)

lexcyber (133454) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880008)

1. I dont need a windowsystem on a server, console (commandline) works fine.

2. If I am going to use the box as a workstation, why do I want to use something ugly that makes my eyes bleed?

I can't find a valid use for this sort of system. Can anyone?

Re:Two questions (2, Insightful)

k03 kalle (669378) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880035)

Yeah, cost.

Imagine this:

You buy 20 10$ 333mhz computers off Ebay or some cheap wholesale outlet.

Retrofit them with BSD/Linux/Whatever, put this on it as the primary interaction with the machine, and install all these computers in a programming class or something.

Now you have a very effective, efficient, and very affordable computer lab for a school. For 200$, you have just created a whole computer lab. Dell tries to sell schools cheap computers for 1500$.

Re:Two questions (0)

lexcyber (133454) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880092)

Where do you save this cost? You still need a graphicscard in them? And I assume you have more then 32M ram in them. Where is this saveings in
cost?

Re:Two questions (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5880160)

but why put twin on it?

gnu screen does a much better job if you're in text mode!

If you have to use a window system, why not use X

I must say that Twin is a cool state of the art program, but there's no real world use for it!

Re:Two questions (3, Informative)

arvindn (542080) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880163)

Hey!

You can easily run X on a 333 Mhz machine.

I use a PII 333 as my server and desktop, and I have very little incentive to upgrade.

If you want to give an example of a bitty box you can't run X on, pick something lower down in the pecking order.

Re:Two questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5880067)

Here is a valid use. You can run the Linux framebuffer console at 1024x768. You can fit a lot of charecters on the screen at that rez!
Even with just text, this is enough screen real estate to make a window manager practical.
So, you get the speed and low overhead of console mode with ease of use of a windowing environment.

If you are working at just 80x25 chars, I agree it's pretty useless, I find it cramped running a single full screen app in that mode already.

Re:Two questions (1)

Surak (18578) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880098)

Yeah. A full desktop for remote access. Have you tried running VNC (even tight VNC) at work when you want to access your box at home that has a 2Mb/400Kb cable modem connction? If you haven't, you'll have to trust me when I say it's ssslllllllooooowwww and consumes much bandwidth.

This thing is text mode, so in theory you could run it over a terminal window, right? This would be MUCH faster. Midnight Commander runs *great* in PuTTY, for instance.

And I don't think its so ugly. It kinda reminds me of my Turbo Pascal days. Looks a lot like the Borland interface ca. ~TP 6.0 with the ObjectVision framework. Gosh, I miss those days! :)

Re:Two questions (1)

cyb97 (520582) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880138)

Instead of running VNC why not run X over ssh; a megabit would be fine to run applications (wouldn't exactly run my WM over 1mbit)...
VNC wastes a lot of bandwidth transferring stuff that could be done by the local workstation (colors, shapes etc.)...

Re:Two questions (1)

khuber (5664) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880181)

Cable is usually asymmetrical. 1Mbit down, but only 32k or so up. It's better than remoting X over a modem, but not much better.

-Kevin

Re:Two questions (1)

cyb97 (520582) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880226)

32kbit ?
Get real, that's about what a 56k modem can handle. Most cable and xDSLs has atleast 128k up... Tight, but not impossible for X

Re:Two questions (1)

Surak (18578) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880283)

First off, cable is asymetric. Bright House limits me to 400Kbps upstream (2Mbps down), and its gonna get worse because when I move next month, Comcast is giving me only 128Kbps upstream.

Secondly, X is decidely not a very secure protocol. You can run X over SSH, sure but you've still gotta have the X ports open on your firewall, which in my book, is a bit scary.

Re:Two questions (2, Funny)

Dark Lord Seth (584963) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880101)

2. If I am going to use the box as a workstation, why do I want to use something ugly that makes my eyes bleed?

Sorry, that's just the way they make those Mac cases... *ducks*

Re:Two questions (2, Insightful)

emmetropia (527623) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880142)

I think I agree that, while this is a *neat* way of doing things, it's exactly what linux *doesn't* need. I constantly read people bickering and ranting about bringing linux to the desktop, and as effecient a means this may be, the only people it would be practical for would be *nix vetrans, who already have experience, and old hardware they don't want to try and run X on. As far as servers go, I know I use 100% command line, I just don't need a window manager to edit conf files. New users to linux will want to see high res, (at least) 16 bit colour, if they're even going to try linux on their pc. This may not hold true for johnny tinkerface, who likes linux for something to play with, but John Mc-cause-its-free will want something that compares to Windows/MacOS. Who knows, maybe i'm just an idiot, but that's my 2 cents.

Any Pascal coders here? (3, Funny)

markov_chain (202465) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880010)

Count the flashbacks to Turbovision!

Re:Any Pascal coders here? (1)

inferis (84322) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880118)

I lost count already. :)

Those were the days... The nested calls you had to do to get a decent menu structure! *faints*

Re:Any Pascal coders here? (1)

allanj (151784) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880126)

Yup - count me in. I had the same association to Turbo Vision within seconds.

I do. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5880011)

I need X because administration of Solaris machines all but requires it. If you want to use any of the tools that Sun provides to make life easier (not knocking Sun, they do make life easier), then you need a machine running X.

Old... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5880021)

...this idea is so old.. I can't remember.. The site already exists since 2001...

Curses! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5880022)

And I liked that little penguin logo at bootup, Now im constrained to 80x25x16 forever.

Wow, I did the same thing! (1)

LeoDV (653216) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880033)

In my day, I also programmed an app similar to Twin for DOS on my old comp. It was a pseudo-graphical app I used to login, launch programs, etc. it was basically my hub from which I did other things. Even had a screensaver (it was basically the date and time wandering accross the screen). Then I got a 286 with Windows 3.1 and forgot all about it (though I still used a different version of it whenever I got back to DOS, or during startup).

I basically forgot all about it when I got a Pentium with Win95 and Slack.

I need XFree86. (3, Insightful)

*coughs loudly* (301749) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880049)

Dude, portability. As Zawinski put it, writing as an SGI user;

"Of course, all of the software I write runs on Linux; that's the beauty of standards, and of cross-platform code. I don't have to run your OS, and you don't have to run mine, and we can use the same applications anyway!"

XFree86 is conservative & lazy with regard to new features; as long as it implements the X protocol, who cares?

Directfb/fresco? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5880052)

These two projects are trying to develop "real" alternatives to X.

Fresco is dead, but Directfb already has full gnome support, X emulation, mplayer support, alpha blending, and hardware accelleration and because it uses the same technology as the penguin logo on bootup, its fast!. This is a REAL alternative to X, and I hope you give it more support.

Directfb homepage [directfb.org]

Re:Directfb/fresco? (2, Insightful)

p00ya (579445) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880157)

I think saying fresco [fresco.org] is "dead" is a little harsh. They're still releasing (M2 came out 2003-03-04), but development is slow and I think Duke Nukem Forever and e20 will be released before fresco could make itself a replacement for the maturing X11-based desktops. Hopefully the project will develop the framework to a point where its possible to start writing new applications.

As for now, I'll stick with xp and fluxbox. And OSX when I save the money for a mac heh. However, I'll continue to support directFB and fresco over XFree86 just so that the projects get the much deserved attention that is essential to their success. Lets hope I wont have to install XFree86 in five years time to get a decent desktop under *nix.

And btw, fresco can (/ hopefully will) coexist with DirectFB. Also, using the fb (that penguin logo on bootup) is slower than pure console - check /usr/src/linux/Documentation/fb/vesafb.txt "graphic mode is slower than text mode."

Re:Directfb/fresco? (1)

Orthanc_duo (452395) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880169)

Isn't the reason they stoped developing X because nobody was able to keep up, still don't think We've fully caught up to X11R6.
Why do we need another graphical alternative??

No network transparency (4, Funny)

lpontiac (173839) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880053)

Last time I looked at it, TWIN needed an X server or a pure Linux console - as in literally sitting in front of a machine running Linux on the keyboard. Telnetting or SSHing in wouldn't work.

Obviously, TWIN is so much faster than X because X can work over a network, and TWIN can't. How many people use network transparency anyway? Down with X!




Hint: this was a joke

Re:No network transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5880172)

Albeit this was meant as a joke, Twin _is_ network transparent,

maybe the server isn't but the clients are!

For instant messaging there is only one: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5880066)

Centericq, no doubt about it. Atleast thats what I have found. Supports all IM-protocols you ever need. Has anyone found a better one?

Another angle.. (3, Insightful)

jocks (56885) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880068)

The one of the ways for visually impaired people to use computers is via "braille screens", which in themselves struggle to render graphical displays.
This work will have the important consequence that visually impaired people will be able to do more than they currently can, the collection will make it much simpler to select the applications available. Great work which will make the world a better place.

Who Needs XFree86? (1)

peterpi (585134) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880074)

Anybody who works with graphics.

Re:Who Needs XFree86? (1, Funny)

khuber (5664) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880217)

Graphics displays are a crutch. I edit PNM ASCII files and Gimp C-Source graphics in a terminal with ed.

-Kevin

If your'e using gentoo. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5880084)

just "emerge twin".

If you're using debian (1)

p00ya (579445) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880175)

just "apt-get install twin [debian.org] .

(18 gentoo user, 1 week rh user, 1 day mdk user, 2 week debian user)

Re:If your'e using gentoo. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5880240)

You forgot "press Enter", "go to kitchen for snack", "check to see if compile is done yet", "play video games for a half hour", "come back and find the ebuild maintainer decided to patch it with all kinds of half-assed nonofficial patches and made the damn thing unusable".

Hope this helps.

Text mode X server (1)

shird (566377) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880088)

and can be used as server for remote clients in the same style as X11

Does this mean it is actually an X server? Will it display any X application (ie netscape etc) in text mode? When he says the same 'style' does he mean it is compatible with the X11 protocol, or just similar?

favorite mail reader? (-1, Redundant)

intermodal (534361) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880090)

pine. even in X i use it in an aterm.

Guess what, though? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5880155)

WHO FUCKING CARES! Stick with the fucking topic you dickhead. Damn, looking for any moment where you can push you favorite MAIL program. "oooh gee whiz, I use PINE, i'm sooo great, blah blah.." Go play in traffic you fucking tool.

Should be called "The Lynx Windows System" (1)

lateralus (582425) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880100)

Depending on twin's weight I might actually try loading this onto a couple of remote servers I run. None of them have X. I'm wondering how well it would work over some of my strangely convoluted network paths (two internal and one external ssh jumps).

*Installs Chicken Wire Around Him And Wears A Helmet* I somehow doubt that it would outperform GNU/Emacs as my remote administration enviroment. Running Emacs within a twin window seems redundant.

Its like a DesqView for Linux. (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880127)

there was a DOS application called Desqview back in the early 90s that allowed DOS to be a multy tasking enviroment. It aparance was simular to this in design, where you can have a windows like environment with out the gui.

Re:Its like a DesqView for Linux. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5880146)

there was a DOS application called Desqview back in the early 90s that allowed DOS to be a multy tasking enviroment. It aparance was simular to this in design, where you can have a windows like environment with out the gui.

There's also a great GNU/Linux application called ispell.

Re:Its like a DesqView for Linux. (2, Interesting)

Ch_Omega (532549) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880245)

"there was a DOS application called Desqview back in the early 90s that allowed DOS to be a multy tasking enviroment. It aparance was simular to this in design, where you can have a windows like environment with out the gui."

I Remember it. I used DesqView386(Which came with QEMM 8.x I think) on my (m)BBS in 93 or so, so I could be able to run two or more nodes on a single computer.

One of the most interesting things in Desqview, was that you could actually run MS Windows 3.1 (in realmode) inside it, in a window. And Desqview was a text-mode environment, remember? ;).

plenty of toolkits like that already (4, Insightful)

g4dget (579145) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880158)

back when most people were computing on vt100s, there were a number of toolkits like that. vt100s even have built in support for text windows.

Favorite console app (2, Informative)

jon787 (512497) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880165)

Bitchx, screen, links, ntaim, and vim.

Re:Favorite console app (2, Informative)

Aliencow (653119) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880192)

Mine include screen, but irssi for IRC, and also, bitlbee [lintux.cx] , which is not really a console app, but more of a deamon. It is based on Gaim, and it provides an IRC server in which the channel #bitlbee is your contact list. To message someone, you just either /msg them or write their name followed by a colon and then your message. Great for MSN/ICQ/AIM over ssh when used with bitchx or irssi !

One Question ... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5880168)

if it ain't broke, why 'fix' it?
Windows works just fine for me.

then again, I know how to use it right =P

time warp (1)

1000101 (584896) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880171)

not trying to bash here, but this kind of seems like a waste. this guy obviously has some good coding skills so there has to be something more useful he could create other than an app that looks like DOS. maybe i'm a jerk, but this doesn't look like it is advancing linux very much.

windows 1.0 screenshots [fsnet.co.uk]

Command line efficiency (1, Interesting)

islisis (589694) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880183)

Although I have misgivings about unused potetial of GUIs my best hope has always been with the command line, because learning to type is not that hard for many people and your instructions are coming from your head rather than a response to what must first be onscreen. My hope is this: that a windows interfacing program be written which accepts a well thought out set of console commands which directly manipulate and switch between the graphical windows on screen. Bang-like commands which move and arrange windows (get to know your coordinate space ;), open dialogs or pre specify what to put in them, search for buttons via their text and are of course scriptable. The impetus is of course to translate your wishes in thoughtform into screen movement. The closest thing we seem to have are key chords and the 'tab' key. Nothing would please me more but to see windows transforming around me through the latency of my typing movements.

Useful for Remote Server Administration (1)

Ween (13381) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880196)

I know there have been times where I would have thought multiple windows running on my server in the same terminal screen would have been much more convenient that having multiple ssh's open. With this, It looks like I could ssh in and run this over the connection allowing me to perform tasks.

Re:Useful for Remote Server Administration (3, Interesting)

Zigg (64962) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880287)

Sounds like you really want screen [gnu.org] . (Yes, it does split screen.

Party like it's 1989 (-1, Troll)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880204)

Back in the days of DOS and Borland Turbo pascal, I wrote programs using a library that allowed me to create a text-mode windowing system. Nice to see that Linux may someday catch up to 1989-era DOS.

Re:Party like it's 1989 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5880339)

Your ignorance astounds and impresses me. You sir are a true viewer of the lowest common denominator interpretation. Rock on in your simplistic universe, and keeeeeeeep posting!

In related news (1, Funny)

SpaghettiPattern (609814) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880246)

MS is launching a strategic project to allow fully text based operation of their famous desktop environment.

An MS spokesman commented: We knew very well but came to realize only too late that the command line interface is the mother of human/computer interface. Much like MS-Dos is the mother of mainframe computers.

The following is a sample of fully text based operation commands (TM) that have leaked from the MS laboratories:
- drag-mouse-imps2-to-point [X, Y] # Defaults to middle of "Start" button
- click-mouse-imps2
- click-click-mouse-imps2
- control-alt-delete [USER-NAME/PASSWORD] # Defaults to administrator's credentials
- start-application [APPLICATION_NAME] # Defaults to IE

good news bad news.. (0, Flamebait)

KingRamsis (595828) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880300)

this not a troll I swear
The good news is that people are finally understanding that X sucks, X is ugly, slow, stupid, a big pile of hacks and rustry code.
I think X is one of the reasons that Linux is not catching up on the desktop, why have built-in network transparency when you can still have a remote desktop by other cleaner ways, no matter how much effort is spent on fixing X it will for ever suck
the bad news is that this distro is a step back to the good ole 80s the desktop is becoming more graphical, loaded with eye candy,a day ago a story was posted on /. about M$ Longhorn XP or whatever its called, it was beautiful and a user interface is not only eye candy we have that already just look at the tons of themes but also concept like responsivness which X lacks with its big FAT slow ass
for Linux to do some serious desktop stuff it should lose X as soon as possible.

Text usage (1)

rf0 (159958) | more than 10 years ago | (#5880324)

I use XFree86 just as a way of having mutliple consoles in a way I like to work. Yeah I could use screen if I wanted. However what about if I want to browse a web page such as my online photo gallery? Also taking performance of any moderm graphics card surely XFree is fast enough in 2D mode

Rus
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...