"Birds are descendants of dinosaurs, but a canary is not a sauropod."<div><br></div><div>Only you seem to know that for sure.</div><div>An interesting discussion in it's own right.</div><div><br></div><div>Same about Unix heritage. The principles</div>
<div>of Unix have changed remarkably little in</div><div>40 years now, while the hardware it supports </div><div>obviously has. Conceptually I haven't seen</div><div>much new in well over 30 years. In every</div><div>
way hardware is bigger, faster, cheaper, </div><div>more reliable, and it's this that made the</div><div>ideas of long ago practical, not new ideas.</div><div>I doubt there are any new concepts in Linux.</div><div>It's mostly that it's open and free now. </div>
<div>Even the Internet is not new - it's been </div><div>around for 35 years now. What is usually</div><div>confused for the Internet by the layman,</div><div>the browser, is of course newer.</div><div><br></div><div>
Being a "users group," we by definition</div><div>are more involved with getting packages</div><div>going and maintained than with the economic</div><div>and technology tradeoffs of Linux proper, </div><div>or even the workings of Linux, beyond how</div>
<div>to configure it.</div><div><br></div><div>That in turn is more driven by the ever</div><div>lower prices and improving performance of</div><div>hardware, and almost not at all by software.</div><div>People knew decades ago that more memory,</div>
<div>bigger drives and displays, faster connections,</div><div>etc., were desirable. Nothing new there.</div><div><br></div><div>Don't know about dinosaurs, but as Santayana</div><div>suggested, those ignorant of history are doomed</div>
<div>to repeat it. It pays to know what is truly new</div><div>and what is cosmetically new, least one flog a</div><div>distinction without a difference. I'll say that </div><div>present day Linux is little different conceptually</div>
<div>from the first release in terms of major concepts,</div><div>and that performance differences are more </div><div>because of silicon than software.</div><div> </div><div><br></div><div> -- Bob</div><div><br></div><div>
<br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Adam Tauno Williams <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:awilliam@whitemice.org">awilliam@whitemice.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On Sat, 2012-01-07 at 14:19 -0500, Bob Kline wrote:<br>
> What kind of bandwidth would you<br>
> envision it would take to support a<br>
> remote user with a high resolution<br>
> display?<br>
<br>
</div>Surprisingly little. I ran multiple remote displays @ 1400x1200 more<br>
than a decade ago [over ethernet]. No problem. Actually performance<br>
was really good.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> Does that seem to get at why you don't see it available?<br>
<br>
</div>No. I don't see it available because it is not available on the Mac<br>
platform as a result of design. It was not a design goal for the Mac<br>
OS/X people, and the feature is not available.<br>
<br>
Birds are descendants of dinosaurs, but a canary is not a sauropod.<br>
The "UNIX heritage" arguments are pragmatically meaningless. And Apple's<br>
OS/X is only a second-cousin of UNIX anyway, it's parent is<br>
NextSTEP/OpenSTEP [which itself was only a UNIX-like OS; heavy on the<br>
"like"].<br>
<br>
Display-Postscript is not X-Windows; NextSTEP and then Mac OS/X<br>
represent some significant divergence from the canonical "UNIX" (if<br>
there ever was such a thing, System V maybe). The display system<br>
inherited from NextSTEP by OS/X is not multi-user and bound to the<br>
physical display [Mac uses "Quartz" which is really Display-PDF; this<br>
change was primarily due to licensing issues with Adobe].<br>
<br>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
grlug mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:grlug@grlug.org">grlug@grlug.org</a><br>
<a href="http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug" target="_blank">http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.