Jump to content
  • Advertisement

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

BradDaBug

PicoGUI

This topic is 5825 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Anyone ever used PicoGUI? I keep hearing how X should be replaced. Could PicoGUI be a good replacement? Anything out there better than both of these? What about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
Guest Anonymous Poster
you just reminded me about it... im ganna put it on my zaurus right now :>

i''ll be back to tell you my impressions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
hmm so far... it looks pretty nice but i cannot see much of a real use for it, there is too little there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
their website documents a lot... it is really amazing just not much written for it in terms of apps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by BradDaBug
Anyone ever used PicoGUI?

Not I.

quote:
I keep hearing how X should be replaced.

It''s an erroneous assessment. X should be redesigned and/or refactored; X fulfills most of its objectives excellently. It only happens to consume too much bandwidth because it supports overly low-level graphical objects. Modifications to the X protocol (essentially, writing a new X-like server) to allow client-specified objects be referenced, as well as an initialization/server update method that allows for icons, colors, etc to be uploaded to the server would solve most of X''s network load issues.

quote:
Could PicoGUI be a good replacement?

Possibly sometime in the future. To be a good replacement, though, it needs to be able to shoulder the burden X currently bears. Having been developed for entirely different uses (PDAs), it''s unclear whether that will ever happen - or if it''s even possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
X should be redesigned and/or refactored; X fulfills most of its objectives excellently. It only happens to consume too much bandwidth because it supports overly low-level graphical objects. Modifications to the X protocol (essentially, writing a new X-like server) to allow client-specified objects be referenced, as well as an initialization/server update method that allows for icons, colors, etc to be uploaded to the server would solve most of X''s network load issues.


Is anyone working to fix these problems?

And why is a client/server model so necessary for just a desktop machine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by BradDaBug
Is anyone working to fix these problems?

I''m thinking about a project sometime in the next year.

quote:
And why is a client/server model so necessary for just a desktop machine?

Therein lies the problem: desktop users think the world ends with them. X is designed for robust usage in a wide variety of contexts. A client-server model isn''t necessary for a desktop machine, but it is useful when you really think about it. Say you wanted to work on your home machine while at the office, or on the road, or anywhere away from home. For non-client-server architectures, you''d need specialized software to dump and transfer your screen output over a network. With X and its built-in network transparency, you merely need to authenticate the workstation you are at and your remote desktop is immediately rendered locally (eat your heart out, MS) - even in a window.

Testing also benefits from X''s structure, as you can run a nested X server on your machine and render its output within a window such that if it crashes (very useful for game developers) it doesn''t take your whole desktop down with it.

Using Unix requires a paradigm shift in thinking. If I have my way and can bring some of my nascent projects to fruition, the shift will switch to overdrive and create tangible benefits for the average desktop user as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
Therein lies the problem: desktop users think the world ends with them.

And they''re usually right.



For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can''t readily accept the God formula, the big answers don''t remain stone- written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command or faith a dictum. I am my own God. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us -- Charles Bukowski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The following is an off topic announcement.

quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
Using Unix requires a paradigm shift in thinking.


My roommate starts flame wars about whether CTRL+C should be used for copy and paste rather than the X method of highlighting and pasting. He says it is easier. Other people complain that he is trying to enforce a MS Windows way of working onto an already established *nix way of working.
In some ways I agree with him and in others I don''t.
He thinks that GNU/Linux should be a better Windows. He is very anti-Microsoft.
I think that GNU/Linux should be a good OS, regardless if it handles like Windows or not. I frankly don''t care so much about Microsoft so much as what it has done in the past. I refused to care about the XBox not because it was an MS product but because MS bought a bunch of developers for way more than they would have made on the game, which I thought was unfair.

My roommate is a usability critic. If he finds something he considers to be wrong with how a program runs, he refuses to use it. Example: man pages. He refuses to use them because he feels he shouldn''t have to.
He will go on and on about how Linux programs are horrible in general because they don''t interoperate "properly" or have inconsistent interfaces.
He will complain that he wants a feature that is found in most other OSes.
Someone will just shoot back that just because 90% of the people use something it doesn''t mean that Linux should adapt to that.
He argues, "Well if Linux is supposed to be brought to the masses, then it will have to"
and I tend to argue, "But (1) the masses don''t have to play with my toy and (2) why doesn''t the world adapt instead?"
I think that *nix is a different way of life. It means knowing what you''re doing. It means that you can''t just try to bumble your way through your computer to get it to do something for you.
And so it isn''t for the person who wants a glorified typewriter. It isn''t for the person who doesn''t want to learn how the computer works but wants it to do stuff for him.
I''m sorry, but I learn how to drive a car before assuming that I can use one. I didn''t get in a car and say "Well why doesn''t moving my feet move the car? It is how it works when I walk. This is stupid" and then get back out. You have to put just a little effort into using your tools correctly. Even using a hammer or a screwdriver takes at least some education, so if you use your computer more like a tool than as a hobby, then you still have to learn how to use it. Maybe the new Mac OS and Windows tries to make computers easier to use, but the farther away from the computer I get, the less appeal the interfaces have to me. I like to get under the hood. I will use the higher interfaces when I (1) don''t have time to learn about it or (2) already know as much as I want about how it works.

Linux gives me the choice.
Windows gives me less of a choice.
Mac OS is practically no choice.
So if you want Linux to be the new Mac OS, be my guest. People will love it, but I won''t.
I want more control of my computer than Apple can provide me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by BradDaBug
And why is a client/server model so necessary for just a desktop machine?


It isn''t but X wasn''t meant to be on a desktop originally.
I wonder if it is possible for someone to create a version of X that doesn''t act so much like a server. Would it be possible to keep the same interfaces but preventing the networking aspect from working? Kind of like removing a feature while keeping the stub? Or would it be more work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

We are the game development community.

Whether you are an indie, hobbyist, AAA developer, or just trying to learn, GameDev.net is the place for you to learn, share, and connect with the games industry. Learn more About Us or sign up!

Sign me up!