Talk:X Window System/Archive 1

message: Someone switched client & server recently; this could be a problem with people unfamiliar with X terminology. Obviously there is a clash. In X, the server is the display, and the client is the machine running the program. This is the reverse of  the more common nomenclature seen elsewhere. Should the paragraph point this out? Pagan 06:55, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to summarize the most important information immediately, and in particular what X is and what it does, rather than burying it several paragraphs down in a subsection. Steven G. Johnson 20:44, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: I've just done a chunk of rewriting. I hope the current intro makes the point clear in not too many words. It's a major point for anyone trying to get their head around X (I have seen it explode brains) and needs to be made clear in the intro. - David Gerard 17:39, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
When explaining why the X server is a server I've always found it useful to try to get the person to concentrate on the ephemerality of the programs involved: the X server is a single program which runs all the time (until the user logs out), while the individual client programs often run for much less time. Anyone think it might be useful to add this to the article? TheGoblin 22:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Client vs Server

message: See WP:FAC. Specifically, the current objections are:
* Object. The explanation, especially towards the bottom of the article, could use a lot more detail. For example, what's meant by the color packages? Also, I'd like to see more about its reception. What have critics of X said? How does it compare to MS Windows? Meelar (talk) 13:46, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: More work needed towards Featured Article status

message: I'm still trying to get the 'History' section to a usable state without actually interviewing Jim Gettys personally. (Besides, that'd be original research.) Does anyone have good references to hand? The history of X is really the history of the industry  politics and fuckups. I've dredged through a pile of news articles, personal page rants from the '90s, etc. Does anyone know of a decent writeup of the history? - David Gerard 09:58, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: History of X is the history of the politics - refs needed!

message: I noticed that "Xaw" is a link to a non-existing page.  I considered making it merely a redirect to Project Athena (even though it's just a stub right now), but I'm not sure if that's the correct answer.  Opinions? --Joe Sewell 17:30, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Xaw is actually the Athena widget set. I'm not sure it should just be a redirect. I have the book on X11R6 here, I really should write it myself some time ... or other ... - David Gerard 23:10, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xaw = Project Athena? 

message: This section seems silly.  Names like "DirectColor" and "PseudoColor" have no meaning to somebody reading an encyclopedia article about X.  (And if you know what they mean, you probably don't need to be reminded what their names are.)  If we're going to list them, we should describe what they are; otherwise this might as well be "X has 6 different foozleblarg modes: sneej, leezle, briggo, foopy, ..." - 4.16.250.40
:You are entirely correct. I looked up documentation on this and couldn't find any online! I'll keep looking, but in the meantime I've commented out the color section ... if anyone is upset by that, please restore it in a way that actually explains each mode! - David Gerard 16:53, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color Modes 

message: The five listed items at X services and protocol interactions don't really describe everything X does I think. It leaves out things like inter-client communication, authentication, and the lowly XBell. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 19:25, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
: ;-)
:I have the book on X11R6 ... packed in a box under a couple of other boxes. When I find it, the early history will get filled out in great detail, and the technical section will probably get a good kick as well. - David Gerard 18:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  X services and protocol interactions 

message: I agree that "None of these systems have had more than negligible uptake" sounds like less use than "None of these systems have had a significant uptake", but on the other hand I think "[not] ... more than negligable" constitutes a rather uncomfortable double negative. Anybody have a third option? --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 21:26, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
:"none have had significant" sounds like there might be a small core of users out there. "none have had more than negligible" IMO more clearly indicates that pretty much only the developers go near them, and often not even them (e.g. Berlin dying of apathy). Only Berlin/Fresco and Y have had even Slashdot attention as X replacements that I know of; I think the sentence would start "none of these systems have had x notice". - David Gerard 18:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''more than negligible'' vs "significant" 

message: is there a port for x window for microsoft windows xp? i found cygwin to have the ability to simulate x window - unfortunately it seems to be bound directly to the windows xp operating system i am running on my computer, rather then giving me the opportunity to connect to an x window client at some other place on the internet (i.e. my university mainframe).
thus, maybe someone can explain how the x window system on a given computer can communicate with an x window client far away?
thanks, --Abdull 00:23, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The way it usually works is you go to the other computer (telnet or ssh to it or walk over to it or whatever) and get it to start a window on the server computer. The other computer is the client, so it has to ask to connect to your computer, the server; so you have to tell the remote computer to ask to connect to your computer's screen. Yes, this could do with a clearer explanation ... anyone? - David Gerard 18:16, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I've added an explanation to "Architecture". Does this make sense? Does anything there need to be clearer? (I'm trying to avoid a detailed prescriptive "how-to") - David Gerard 18:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  x window on microsoft windows xp 

message: In the edit history, David Gerard wrote:
*restore dates (not overlinking - you're supposed to link all relevant dates
Here are my thoughts on the matter: one of the great things about Wikipedia is that it is hypertext. So a reader can easily go from one topic to another. So if the X Window article mentions network transparency, the reader can click on the link and read about 'network transparency'. That is a 'good thing'.
Since there are so many articles in wikipedia, we could go berserk and add a link to each word when such a strategy adds little value. Furthermore if we repeat a word, we could link the second instance of the word, the third instance of the word, the fourth instance of the word and so on. That may appear as a Reductio ad absurdum explanation but if we look at date links in Wikipedia we are not far off.
For example, in this article, we have four instances of the term 1986 in 4 consecutive lines. Each of those has been linked. Three lines later it is linked again. Later on in the article, it occurs again in three consecutive lines, each instance linked. It seems to me that:
* of all the links in this article, terms such as '1986' probably come at the bottom of the list for further reading.
* of all the reasons to repeat a link, a term being unlinked for 2 lines is probably not one of them.
I think one of the reasons why this issue comes up is because of something unrelated to hypertext. It relates to date formats and date preferences. For some reason, the mechanism for permitting date preferences to work has been implemented in the same manner as a link. So that is why many complete dates are linked. However, a year word by itself does not have the date format preference issue. You are not alone in thinking that all dates should be linked but I think that many people do not understand that this is only because of date formatting, not because of a particular Wikipedia philosophy that readers are unfulfilled in their ability to check up on date articles.
This issue comes up from time to time in various places. I have a clear opinion on it and you can, of course, take a different view to me. It is only a secondary interest of mine anyway.
You may wish to refer to the following:
*Manual of Style (dates and numbers) section on date linking
*Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28links%29#Internal_links Manual of Style (links) section on over linking
Feel free to do whatever you think will improve the article. Keep up the good work. Regards. Bobblewik 15:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to year words on their own such as '1986' 

message: Are these recent edits really NPOV? --Joe Sewell 16:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That recent edit and the attempted cleanup of it turned the 'criticisms' section into a dog's breakfast. OTOH it adds useful information. Is there a good writer in the house with time to rewrite it? - David Gerard 12:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The Department of Redundant Redundancy Department went through it and removed most of it — much better now IMAO - David Gerard 13:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits by [[User:220.233.107.29|220.233.107.29]] 

message: Saying that Client and server are reversed is an oversimplification that can confuse matters further. When I think of "Server" there are two elements I look at. First, my data files are frequently on another computer from the one I am at, but I access programs locally. Thus, in this sense, the "server" just holds data files. My second sense of server is similar to the sense when referring to X, but with one difference. My second sense of "server" provides the drivers for keyboard mouse and display, but also an API for allocating and accessing other system resources. This second part (other system resources) doesn't seem to be part of the X specification. Hackwrench 23:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have just said that X running on the local computer is called the server because it waits for incomming connections from the remote programs that wish to display graphics. Ie the terms come from the underlying network model where it is the remote program that initiates the connection. Squashed sultana 10:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Client Server "reversed"? 

message: This is my second and more pressing issue with X, which is how are clients made inward facing, which is to say not able to be connected to or connect to a server on another computer? The same question applies to the server too. Hackwrench 23:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand your question correctly: You can (try to) block network connections in a firewall. The server can decide to (try to) accept connections only from local peers, for example by not listening for TCP connections. SSH and other proxy software can of course fool these to some extent. --TuukkaH 23:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inward facing clients 

message: I submitted X Window core protocol for peer review, as I intend to candidate it for featured status. I would appreciate comments (Peer review page). - Liberatore(T) 17:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review of a related article 

message: Should "Hewlett-Packard's OpenVMS operating system includes a version of X with CDE, known as DECwindows, as its standard desktop environment" be reworded?  Since HP also ships HP-UX (which presumably also has X), perhaps both should be mentioned to avoid confusion, as OpenVMS and DECwindows are legacy DEC products.  It just seems a little like saying "DaimlerChrysler's Plymouth Road Runner Super Bird," with the difference that HP is, in fact, maintaining and shipping legacy DEC stuff.
:Dunno. You can reword if you like, but OpenVMS is a current product. Just a very high-end one. And considerably less dead than HP-UX - David Gerard 12:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OpenVMS / DECwindows reference? 

message: As seen in the Wikipedia article on Display Postscript (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_PostScript), it become Quartz. Aqua is the visual theme in OS X, not the display technology.
:Display Postscript was replaced by Quartz. Neither is a window manager. -Ahruman 15:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Display PostScript did not become Aqua 

message: Regardless of attempts to actually integrate this in X11, I don't see how the lack of audio support can be a criticism for a 'windowing manager' (there is a clue in the name) any more than we would criticise the fact that it can't make coffee or do any of the other things it isn't designed for in the first place. For this reason, I am removing the offending paragraph.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.153.104.185 (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Sound Support 

message: Seems to me that this is about that X not being a full blown Desktop environment, which is akin to the "problem" that X doesn't have support for sound. Anyone mind if I remove them or replace all of them with a new section describing the perceived core problem (that X is not a desktop environment)?
FrederikHertzum (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  User interface issues and Computer accessibility related issues 

message: A toolkit? A protocol? An implementation? A GUI?
:No, yes, a fair bit, not quite - David Gerard 12:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Intro rewritten as "[thing] is ..." - if that isn't clear, add wikilinks to taste - David Gerard 10:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: To restore the honor of anonymous poster world-wide: I was not confused, but merely pointing out the inconsistency. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.235.209.158 (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this article about? 

message: The article asserts that applications cannot migrate.  This is not in fact true.  An early counter example is Gnu Emacs, which has been about to do so since the 1980's (along with replicated display).  (diff author: actually Emacs can not only migrate, but co-use multiple displays, very handy for getting one emacs' multiple windows to spread onto a second X server on your desktop - or assist someone over the Internet in the old days when TCP listen was still on by default)
This was painful in the past due to colormaps (though if you thought ahead while building a toolkit, it wasn't difficult).  It is now
much easier, between client side fonts and true color displays being the norm.
A more recent example is that GTK+ applications can potentially migrate, at least if they do not use obsolete interfaces.  See the "teleport" application of the GPE environment.  What is still missing is both good integrated authentication and security (encryption) of the protocol to make migration "safe" to do.  I'd like to see people pursue this: see my paper http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2005/view_abstract.php?content_key=102
And with the rewrite of the input section of the X Server, remoting input devices is also now becoming feasible.  Oh, this paper should probably get added to the bibliography.
As I am Jim Gettys 23:57, 01-Jan-2007 (UTC), I leave it to others to verify this and edit the article.
: I tried to rephrase the Network section to reflect this, and used your paper as a source. Demian12358 22:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Application Migration

message: (2007-02-04) Just to let you know.  The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors.  It will remain on the portal for a week or so.  The previous selected article was GIMP. Gronky 20:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The selected article box has been updated again, the new selectee is FOSDEM. Gronky 12:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On [[Portal:Free software]], X Window System is currently the selected article 

message: One of your references had a broken link. 
The means to an X for Linux: an interview with David Dawes from XFree86.org (Matthew Arnison, CAT TV, June 1999) 
I used the latest archived page of it since I could not find the page anywhere else.
Psychless 01:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken reference link 

message: I got the following from a post to my local LUG (GWLUG):Both my ISP's and UT=128.83.185.40 's dns servers agree. X.org and www.x.org
> > do not exist!
I got "Firefox can't find the server at www.x.org." after my attempt to connect to it at http://www.x.org/
Borgward 16:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whois lists the domain as ok.  None of the nameservers are responding so they are offline.  Most likely they put all of their nameservers on the same subnet.  No one should do this of course but it is quite common. Robert Brockway 17:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Happened to X ORG? 

message: Yeahb, the picture takes a long time to load on AOL 9.0. It will be nice if we could fix that.
PLEASE HELP  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.187.252 (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implementations 

message: The image pretends that one has only to log into another machine using ssh for having an ssh tunnel. But in the example just the call of xeyes is encrypted but not the data xeyes transferes. -- Raubsaurier (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No pretense involved, all data over the net is encrypted; see ssh(1) for details. --24.7.241.89 (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image X11 ssh tunnelling 

message: What makes desktop environments such as GNOME and KDE different from the X Window System? --Abdull (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: GNOME, KDE, etc., are particular applications that happen to run in X Tedickey (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, sets of applications and policies and so on. Marnanel (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  (GNOME, KDE etc.) vs. X Window System 

message: There's a factual inaccuracy in X window manager which has been noted at Talk:X_window_manager#Metacity.27s_compositor:_requested_fix for a while, which I can't fix because of WP:COI; can someone else step in, please? Marnanel (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed (mostly), see comments over at that talk-page. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested fix at [[Talk:X_window_manager#Metacity.27s_compositor:_requested_fix]] 

message: My memory is fading, but I'm pretty sure that it was called "X10.3" back in the day, not "X10R3" I think the R replaced the dot sometime in the X11 series.  linas (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, yes. See  -- 69 hits for "X10.4 release", vs. 45 for "X10R4 release". linas (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  X10.3 vs X10R3? 

message: Third-party servers under Mac OS 7, 8 and 9 included White Pine Software's eXodus and Apple's MacX.
I'm not familiar with the Mac OS scene, but if MacX is actually an Apple product, it's not "third-party". Not sure, but perhaps the intent here is that it did not ship with the OS? In that case, maybe replace with:
Mac OS 7, 8 and 9 did not include an X server, but several X servers were available including White Pine Software's eXodus and Apple's MacX.
--24.7.241.89 (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity wanting in "Implementations" section. 

message: Using "The UNIX-HATERS Handbook" (1994) as an intro to the criticism section is a little odd. The book is 
# more like a laughing-mirror for unix users in the year 1994, and more funny than serious,
# considerably blunt, off-topic and not-very accurate as a real criticism of X, it makes failure prognoses that are obviously wrong by current experience,
I think the statement should be moved somewhat further downwards in the criticism section, as a funny detail to refer to. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 13:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The section of "The UNIX-HATERS Handbook" should be removed, because the critics are not up to date and it makes no useful contribution to the article.  In the better case it can be mentionated in a "culture" section with no all the explanation.--Guilloip (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: 1994?

message: As discussed on Talk:Xming and other places on the web, the product is no longer exactly free nor Free --SeeFood (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that why it is used by GPL projects andLinux and Portable Ubuntu for Windows, and shares its source code with the Cygwin/X project?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.107.196 (talk) 06:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving Xming from Free to proprietary 

message: Since certain images have had their Windows background removed, they no longer show what they purport to show. I think they should be removed. Yworo (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, all that would be needed to be non-infringing would be to use a screenshot with the plain blue background, and crop out the toolbar. One could add a blue background to the Xming image, for instance, using gimp. Tedickey (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true.... though I think somebody should take a new screenshot and do that. The site this was derived from claims to have put the image with Windows in it into the public domain. Since they aren't actually able to do that, should we be linking to that page on that site? Yworo (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Already done. The toolbar at the top is open source software. The possibly "non-free" elements that Yworo tried to get the image deleted over have been cropped out and replaced with a transparent background. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogus images should be removed 

message: A couple omissions to the history here.
First of all the AT&T UNIX PC of which I was one of the first owners did not succeed in the market because it was poorly positioned as a competitor to the IBM-PC.  It was much more powerful yet vastly more expensive.  At the time AT&T couldn't market anything other than long distance telephone service.  More or less the same thing happened with Honeywell trying to market the GE line of mainframes which were eventually sold to Bull of France.
As for the X Window System, SunDew or NeWS was vastly superior yet was deliberately crushed by IBM, HP and DEC because they were angry at Sun's de facto standard for NFS and were bound and determined to prevent another.  NeWS was mainly only used by Sun and SGI on high end workstations that most people didn't even know existed at the time.
I could just send a PostScript file to my Sun 3/60's display and could program graphics in PostScript.  Show me a X display that can do that even today without some kind of interpreter.
----
Yes, there was a vast conspiracy of evil corporations to crush the wonder that was NeWS.  If it had been allowed to flower, it could be as wonderful today as...NFS!!
I could just send a PostScript virus to my Sun 3/60's display and have it propagate itself.  Show me an X display that can do that even today without some kind of interpreter.
The fact of the matter is that while PostScript had a better drawing model than X, a Turing-complete window system was (and still is) considered a bug rather than a feature by most folks.  There were also various intellectual property...issues.  The net today is that X supports primitives that make the PostScript-like drawing model of Cairo (http://cairographics.org) reasonably fast, and OpenGL has also subsumed quite a bit of the need for fancy rendering.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.168.48.167 (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  SunDew/NeWS and the AT&T 7300 UNIX PC vs. X--[[Special:Contributions/75.218.5.85|75.218.5.85]] ([[User talk:75.218.5.85|talk]]) 02:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Jim 

message: That's injecting the editor's opinion, by stating in some many words that there weren't any multiprocessors, that all of the X hosts were large.  Expensive is relative (costs have always been calculated per-user).  Tedickey (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:   single large expensive, etc. 

message: The writing is well polished, and hard to refactor without bruising something, or I would have just waded in and trimmed the lede myself.  Instead, a few observations.  
Already the second sentence It creates a hardware abstraction layer where software is written to use a generalized set of commands, allowing for device independence and reuse of programs on any computer that implements X. is written for an adept audience.  
The second sentence should be X originated at MIT in 1984.  Under a permissive license.  In was designed at the time to permit time sharing, which is no longer so important, but since it solves some other problems well enough, it remains in widespread use, not without some drawbacks.  Then it needs about half as much technical description of which part of the software stack it lays claim to, and what it's like to work at that layer (a world full of windows, fonts, pointers, and C code).  
The current protocol version, X11, appeared in September 1987.  The lede should state something about the history of the official specification / specification body.  
Rather than wading so heavily into enumerating the technical bits and pieces, I would prefer the lede to end on an explanation that X combines the wrong abstractions by modern standards, and is being actively exploded: 
* [Phoronix Wayland: A New X Server For Linux]
* [Phoronix A Preview Of Kernel-Based Mode-Setting]
Distilling the essence of this change is the part of the writing process I most enjoyed, before I discovered the scope of the prohibition against OR and gifted illuminations of guru grumblings, so these sources are kind of worthless for the purpose here. — MaxEnt 14:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Time-sharing is something different from remote access.  X addressed the latter.  Tedickey (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

text: As these things do, the intro more or less grew and had subclauses bolted on as time passed. I'd say dive in and condense, moving subclauses into the body as appropriate :-) - David Gerard (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

text: In fact, the entire article is suffering from subclause decay, editorialising, advocacy, advertising and stuff that belongs on the talk page. Do feel free to go the hack on it. Say "see talk page" in the edit summary ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 09:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions on trimming the lede 

message: Although X and specifically DeskView/X offered an alternative to current Windows dominance, the high cost of developing software using Motif led to too few offerings to be competitive. Alternative like Mootif, Lestiff, and Xtif appeared later. Not much about this in Motif article.Shjacks45 (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, be bold! Go ahead, add it! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  X lack of success because of Motif licensing should be noted 

message: When did X11 introduce workspaces? I have used them in 1997 already and my guess it that they were available much earlier. but this article does not talk about them, while on MacOS X this feature gets an extra article: Spaces (software). This is typical. -- 86.103.175.109 (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You guessed right — as Spaces (software) says, "virtual desktops existed for quite some time on other platforms"; according to virtual desktop, switchable desktops have been around since 1986, and were implemented on X in 1989. That said, I see nothing particularly notable about "Spaces", and the "Use" section could certainly be trimmed. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 10:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Workspaces 

message: X Windows was originally developed in a benign computer environment. Getting two computers at that time to communicate with each other was a tricky, and attacks of the type we see today were not considered.
There should be a paragraph on encryption or rather the lack of it. Yes one can start a session using ssh, but for example if one is going to use Xdm then there is no encryption without jumping through hoops. -- PBS (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of encryption 

message: The article talks about these and makes a reference to "software framework". But I still have no idea what a primitive is. The the references article doesn't mention the word. Kelly222 (talk) 08:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primitives 

message: That's a rather large paragraph which isn't reflected in the linked topic, and has the appearance of being mostly promotional rather than informative TEDickey (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I see (you're justifying the promotional aspect on the basic of "it should be promoted").  Perhaps you'd like to improve the linked topic (though promotionalism isn't an improvement), rather than biasing this topic? TEDickey (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

text: It has the usual earmarks, and your responses aren't helpful.  The sourcing is weak, the paragraph goes into a lot of detail that (if it were sourced properly) would belong in the Orca (assistive technology) topic, and does not have much to do with this topic.  Take a closer look at Comparison of screen readers, noting that there's more than one application which would run in X and provides analogous functionality, contrary to your comment that "Orca is the main means", etc TEDickey (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  undue focus given to Orca 

message: Has X.Org Server and its anchestors (back up to X1) always been the reference implementation of the X Window System? --Abdull (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: X10 was the first published version.  There are numerous comments about it being a reference implementation. TEDickey (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Source? --Abdull (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Was that regarding X10, or the applicability of "reference implementation" to X.Org and kindred? TEDickey (talk) 11:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

text: By the way, my recollection is that the term "reference implementation" came mainly from the X.Org people to legitimize their fork from XFree86, and that it was less-used during the 1990s.  Demonstrating that would take more work than I'd put into a talk-page, though I probably have enough email and so forth if I chose to document it properly as an external page. TEDickey (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference implementation 

message: The illustrations appear to be WP:OR, lacking any WP:RS.  Some improvement would be helpful. TEDickey (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please leave the diagram? And try to resolve the original research and references issues? Maybe I'll have a go at finding sources for it myself. I have been looking for ages for such a diagram, I've immediately saved it on my harddrive. I would highly appreciate it if it can be kept for some time. :-) Paulus/laudaka Laudaka's talk page 07:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

text: Most of that editor's changes are WP:OR (essentially promotional).  Judging by the amount, there may be a source from which it has been transplanted - that source might bear some discussion. TEDickey (talk) 10:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linux graphics stack (sic) 

message: Can some experienced user have a look at here? It's about one of the diagrams that used in this article. I'll be thankful. Bkouhi (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the ancient version, at least it relates to reality slightly (possibly could do with updating, who uses up2date any more).  Which do you think is better? - David Gerard (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

text: The old one is preferable: the new one has multiple issues, e.g., (a) cluttered with non-topical items, (b) specific to one not-yet-available configuration, (c) some unsourced opinion thrown in for subjective weighting.  TEDickey (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Mm. I drew the original (way back when), I'll do a redrawn version this evening (checking each use across a zillion wikis first, of course) - David Gerard (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Simple version back. I've also removed the other two impenetrable multicoloured blobs as unhelpful - David Gerard (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  diagram 

message: There's something that happens to Wikipedia articles: people add subclauses and qualifiers all over the prose, typically with terrible grammar, let alone prose flow.
So I've just gone axe-crazy on the utterly impenetrable intro and am cleaning up the rest of the text, pruning carbuncles and encrustations. Any deep objections? - David Gerard (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro rewrite, prose fixes 

message: So I just filed a  on Fresco (windowing system). Because there is little evidence anyone actually cared. I looked through the history to find the original author to notify, and it was ... me, nine years ago. I figure this talk page is the best place to find anyone who would actually care enough to add references - David Gerard (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't seem to be much (aside from newsgroup-style comments) TEDickey (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: The joys of the unnoteworthy

message: Hi guys, where can I find a history of the core protocol with changes between releases? Thanks. 2.179.229.11 (talk) 03:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: https://www.x.org/wiki/Releases/History/ plus ChangeLog in source. GangofOne (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the core protocol 

message: (First sentence of the "History" section) Does it have a technical meaning or does it just mean what it sounds like: a system for displaying (raster) images instead of just text? AngusCA (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Consulting a dictionary would help (rasters refer to parallel lines, while bitmaps are not limited in that fashion). TEDickey (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting... perhaps I've not seen enough bitmaps, but I think they'd be poorly suited for vector displays. AngusCA (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

text: An LCD display might be a suitable example. TEDickey (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's a "bitmap display systems"? 

message: Hello,
I had this edit, in which I added the words free (because X being free software is one of its defining aspects), and Cross Platform (another key topic) reverted.  I think it's a worthwhile thing to add, as these are differentiating factors from other window systems.  What do we think about this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakesyl
:The suggested source isn't a reliable source, because (being authored anonymously) it falls short of the guideline: 
:Rather, it was equivalent to linking to Wikipedia. The link to cross-platform was to the "wrong" topic (though even if it had been accurate, that is overused, effectively vacuous even for Wikipedia).  So there was no improvement suggested. TEDickey (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There might be a useful source (neutral, knowledgeable, third-party), but the linfo one has many problems. TEDickey (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free/Cross Platform in Title 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on X Window System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050114191427/http://www.computerworld.com:80/softwaretopics/software/appdev/story/0,10801,67861,00.html to http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/software/appdev/story/0,10801,67861,00.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050212013335/http://xfree86.org:80/pipermail/forum/2003-April/003127.html to http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-April/003127.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050212013349/http://www.xfree86.org:80/pipermail/forum/2003-March/002018.html to http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-March/002018.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050212013104/http://www.xfree86.org:80/pipermail/forum/2003-March/001997.html to http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-March/001997.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050212012809/http://www.xfree86.org:80/pipermail/forum/2003-March/002165.html to http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-March/002165.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050212013506/http://www.xfree86.org:80/pipermail/forum/2003-April/003016.html to http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-April/003016.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I recall all this from memory. Xterms (thin clients) became widespread during the late 80s in research organizations. They were typically in restricted areas of universities or labs, and not accessible for the entire student population because of their cost. (Wall Street exchanges were also large users of Sun unix/X systems because of speed and security.) The large, often 20", RGB monitors were particularly attractive to thieves. Workstations that booted these xterms cost $30k (USD, e.g. Sun) and upwards, while the xterms were in the vicinity of $5k. Many xterms, such as IBMs, utilized cheaper x86 hardware 2/3/486 CPUs and FPM memory, rather than their own faster hardware. While the xterm CPU was intended to take the 3D computational load, the CPUs were too slow and networks too slow to give the same graphical performance as full workstations. By the late 90s much cheaper PCs running full X systems had completely killed off even the cheapest proprietary hardware. The x86 hardware released at this time had overtaken nearly all other workstation hardware in terms of performance. Sub $1k PCs out-computed $100k deskside monsters.27.33.247.210 (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sub $1k PCs out-computed $100k deskside monsters." Revisionism is nice but c'mon, this is going too far. In the late 90's desktop pc's were running P-IV's, while the $100,000 monsters were running 128 Itanics in a single system image, and so on. PC's did eventually take over where workstations left off but let's not slap ourselves on the back too hard ... 116.231.76.144 (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xterms, rise and fall. 

message: I think the image showing "a modern example" could do more justice to how far the KDE project has come and display the gorgeous design that is visible to users now. KDE 4 leaves the impression as if open-source GUI-s are still behind those of proprietary OS-s. Karland90 (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to drop in a 2016 screenshot :-) - David Gerard (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A modern example..." 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on X Window System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050907093907/http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-February/003945.html to http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-February/003945.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100626203344/http://icie.cs.byu.edu/cs656/Papers/Gettys.pdf to http://icie.cs.byu.edu/cs656/Papers/Gettys.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050212012732/http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-March/000418.html to http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-March/000418.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041222151738/http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-March/000554.html to http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-March/000554.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050106075606/http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-March/002415.html to http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-March/002415.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041227204437/http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-April/003144.html to http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-April/003144.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=107696705911864&w=2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Mir sits on top of Wayland now so I'm not even sure it still is a competitor to X. The current state of Wayland and its adoption should be noted, it's no longer just a "prospective replacement". 192.198.151.44 (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competitors section needs an update 

message: In the Nomenclature section, the two different meanings for "virtual screen" are shown in bold font... all other definitions aren't. Those two defs already have bullets to visually distinguish them, so I almost removed the boldface (i.e., seems "extra", and for consistency on the page). But maybe there was a reason for it.. any objection to changing it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.39.220 (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivial: Why are two Nomenclature definitions shown in bold font? 

message: Tedickey please explain why discussing Wayland in this article is "not an improvement" and therefore should be reverted. X is deprecated legacy technology. Omitting its successor from the article makes it IMO incomplete. —a thing 21:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Wayland is the present. Actively maintained projects that used X which haven't completely switched to Wayland yet (like KDE Plasma) are in the process of doing so. Even Mir's website now says "Wayland is the de facto successor to X11". I didn't see Wayland when I looked at the article initially. After doing Ctrl + F in my browser, I found it. I don't understand why the Competitors section is even there? Why are systems which have never used X nor had any relationship with its development relevant to the article? I think that whole section should be removed and the brief mention of Wayland in the History section restored. Mir could be mentioned briefly in the History section too if someone wants to write a little about that. —a thing 02:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wayland