13 Sep
2017
13 Sep
'17
5:25 a.m.
On 09/12/2017 09:01 PM, Jon Steinhart wrote:
Well, I agree that this is one area in which X does
OK.
I also like how X will allow me to have windows from remote programs
mixed with local programs and does not require a full desktop. (A
feature that RDP has gotten in the last 10 ? years.)
Although, being a command line sort of guy, I'm
happy to ssh into a machine
and run commands. I try to avoid non-scriptable GUIs.
I completely agree.
I don't administer headless machines, and stay
very far away from Oracle.
I'm not sure what their installer does, but usually running X requires an
installed and running system.
Sadly my use case what proving to a ... questionable DBA that things
could work as directed, despite his objections the other way.
Since I was not familiar with Oracle RAC and Oracle DB, I needed to go
the front door route, taking screen shots and documenting each and
everything I did. (Partially for political reasons.)
Yes, you do need an installed (base) OS with some dependencies.
Thankfully you don't need a full window manager or the bloat that comes
with things like Gnome / KDE.
So since a number of people have justified networked
graphics we're back
to the question of what an API should look like. At a very high level,
it needs to be modular because there is no one thing that gets done with
graphics, and there's no reason to carry a huge API around just because
you need a small part of it. In particular, there is a distinction
between applications that spit out geometry and those that spit out mass
quantities of pixel/voxel data.
"voxel"? I'll have to look that up.
Also, because of the way that this discussion started,
I'm not sure whether
or not resource management (windows, keyboard, etc.) falls under the
umbrella of graphics.
I expect that they should be included in such discussions. After all,
they are intimately related. GUI applications are of questionable value
if you can't interact with them.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die