Re: Newbie On XFree86

[rheaton sympatico ca (Russ Heaton)]

On 12 Jan 2001 23:35:28 +0100, in linux.redhat.install you wrote:

>
>XFree86 is a "freely redistributable open-source implementation of
>the X Window System that runs on UNIX(R) and UNIX-like (like Linux, the
>BSDs, Mac OS X (aka Darwin) and Solaris x86 series) operating systems and
>OS/2."
>
>What XFree86 provides is the basic display infrastructure required for a
>graphical interface.  This includes resolution, color depth, and monitor
>configuration.  Drivers for video cards in *nix used to written in the
>form of "X servers", one for each video card.  As time progressed, the "X
>servers" began to become more standard, and the parts that were different
>for each card were differentiated into drivers.  As it stands now (with
>XFree86 4.0) each card has a driver (some drivers serve more than one
>card) and a single, generic server, so it ends up being a lot like Windows
>in its basic structure (although the details are very, very different).
>
>The X Window System is actually a bit of a misnomer -- X allows things to
>be displayed, including windows, but doesn't actually handle the layout
>and formatting of the Graphical User Interface (GUI).  X really is an
>abstraction layer that separates the display from the hardware, and deals
>only with the low-level display details.  This is why you need to set up X
>initially, and that's why when people talk about drivers for video cards
>under *nix they talk about "X servers". (This gets really confusing, I'm
>not going to go into X nomenclature).
>
>The big distinction (some would say mistake) with X is that it is
>*networkable*.  I can run a program on your machine and display it on my
>machine, or vice versa.  All of this is handled below the GUI level
>utilizing the X protocol -- to the local machine, everything being
>displayed in the GUI is the same.
>
>The actual GUI layout and construction is handled by two interlocking
>pieces of software known as the Window Manager and the Session Manager.
>Now, neither one of these is actually required for an X session -- just
>boot to runlevel 3 and type:
>
>X
>
>at the command console.  You will be taken to Virtual Console 7 (on Red
>Hat at least) and presented with an annoying grey-checkerboard screen and
>a goofy-looking X-shaped mouse pointer -- and nothing else.  This is a
>basic X session.  Most people do not run X in this way, as it is difficult
>to work in.  They prefer to wrap the X session in either a Window Manager
>(Sawfish, blackbox, Enlightenment, AfterStep, WindowMaker, kwm, etc), a
>session manager (GNOME, KDE) or both (GNOME/Sawfish, KDE/kwm).
>
>This drives Windows people nuts because they are used to being able to
>configure everything in one place.  Worse, there is no definition of what
>window and session manager are supposed to do, to keep them from stepping
>on each other.  This occurs frequently, unless the window manager and
>session manager are specifically engineered to work together.  Still,
>configuring the whole thing is, quite frankly, annoying.
>

Wow.   I wish I personally knew someone who has the insight that you do into the difficulties and frustrations involved in migrating from 'something else' into the Unix/Linux environment.  You should perhaps consider writing a book.  I can see that you know a lot about your subject and yet have the ability to see that there are other worlds and other points of view that most 'help' and 'doc' writers fail to grasp.  Following is a verbatim passage from an Apache chapter from a Linux 'Complete Reference' manual I spent $70.00 on:

The access control directives can be used globally to control access to the entire site or placed within Directory directives to control access to individual directives.  In the following example, all users are allowed access.

   order  allow, deny
   allow from all

Now what am I supposed to infer (conclusively) from that?  The 'allow from all' certainly seems to indicate that all users are allowed access, so why is the 'order allow,deny'  part included in the example?   What if I'd specified 'order deny, allow'?  This is never mentioned.   I could cite a million examples of this sort of thing that I have encountered in my Linux experience. 

I guess what I'm suggesting here is that I need a human being to talk to....not an FAQ, or a help page or a man page.  Would you consider giving me some of your time?   I'd really appreciate a few minutes of your telephone time (I'll pay).

Sincerely,

Russ Heaton.