20 years ago Linux cult members were using the same "blame-the-user"-type arguments.
Nothing has changed. I don't use Emacs. I only gave it as an easily-testable example. Try: apt-get install xemacs ; export DISPLAY=windows.mylan:0.0 ; xemacs Professionally, I have been a C++ developer for 20 years, and I am also a published author: https://www.amazon.com/LINUX-Rute-Users-Tutorial-Exposition/dp/0130333514 I don't need to do ANY analysis or tests to see that the Cygwin and Mingw X Servers have abhorrent latency problems: you press a key and you wait 0.25 seconds for the page to render. That's like the speed of a page render over 9600 baud terminal. X Servers were NEVER this slow even in the 1990s. Why would I sit and do a mathematical analysis, when I can simply uninstall it and install something that actually works??? Why would I waist my time trying to fix the problem, when cygwin mailing list respondents refuse to admit the problem exists??? You are like a Flat-Earther the way you argue. Paul On 6/5/18, L A Walsh <cyg...@tlinx.org> wrote: > Paul Sheer wrote: >>> Maybe you aren't familiar with 'X'. X is just a graphical >>> transport. It doesn't have menus unless some other program puts them >>> up. >>> Try 'X' on linux -- running it from startX from a console and see >>> how easy it is to use. >>> >> >> >> NetSarang commercial X server has configuration menus to set keyboard >> mappings, cut-paste behavior, and various other settings in a user >> friendly manner. It has orders of magnitude faster performance in a >> side-by-side comparison using XEmacs Motif as a test application >> displayed remotely over a 1GB LAN. > --- > That's fine, but how much does NetSarang cost for 10-15 years > of commercial support & upgrades? > > I use Gvim over a Gtk interface. The fact that you are > comfortable with a 20 yr-old graphical interface, that was only > reasonably supported by commercial Unix vendors puts you in a > different class of users -- which was why I suggested an Apple > based OS in the first place. > > >> But that fact that you are using the reason "X is just a graphical >> transport" as an excuse makes me realize it is impossible to have a >> conversation with you. > --- > From my perspective, that's what it is, not too many > programs are built on the Xlib et al. widget set. I tune my programs > and I/O more for file I/O and know my toolsets enough to know that > they don't do with small packets, but had file I/O tuned at > 125megaB (mega=10**6) writes and 119megaB reads over a 1GB LAN > and now get 600+MB(M=2**20) reads and 275+ writes over a 8Gb LAN > (10 in name, but lose 20% to bus speed). My speeds now, in file > I/O and in gvim are limited by CPU speed as Gvim does near full > syntax parsing for error and color display. > > Realize though, that the fact that you prefer a commercial > emacs version to a free X11+gtk Gvim sorta puts you more in a > commercial apple class which is another reason I pointed at > Apple based computers. Also, even the fact that you prefer emacs > + motif...makes it less likely you'll be happy with something > that requires more work on the part of the user to tune for the > OS + hardware; again=> apple. > > I hope you appreciate my input, it certainly wasn't from a fanboy > of any of the OS's, point of view, but you've indicated you want > Cadillac features and support. I suggest and hope you find what > you are looking for. > > > (M=2**30) writes with > -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
