Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Wayland Makes Progress
Date: 9 May 2026 16:51:31 GMT
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <n6970jFmk36U4@mid.individual.net>
References: <10sv1kk$gjtg$1@dont-email.me> <slrn10v6ion.acg.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh> <10t001q$pcmf$5@dont-email.me> <20260430095306.0000330b@gmail.com> <10t01vb$2p94u$1@dont-email.me> <20260430101559.00000fe5@gmail.com> <10t0kv8$10lf6$8@dont-email.me> <20260501135638.000014d3@gmail.com> <10t3a7f$1og72$5@dont-email.me> <20260501155425.00007474@gmail.com> <10t3bmo$1og72$8@dont-email.me> <20260504152020.000053cd@gmail.com> <10tbbff$1nih$5@dont-email.me> <20260505081230.00005ae5@gmail.com> <slrn10vp36e.92m.boraxman@geidiprime.invalid> <10tj0e1$2dneu$4@dont-email.me> <slrn10vrnce.cs1.boraxman@geidiprime.invalid> <10tllan$36s18$7@dont-email.me> <slrn10vufls.gce.boraxman@geidiprime.invalid>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net 90mufCwViHWWBHpmYtjVEw4huqQKETEEbF50e345LC+aWcW/xX
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yAKNdsXzWVkU0fNG0sd437d9ZU4= sha256:u4fJWiFlmmQDYtm60GB1cgEkLi4DRO6JCNKpdo7qsds=
User-Agent: Pan/0.162 (Pokrosvk)
Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:86292

On Sat, 9 May 2026 14:03:40 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:

> On 2026-05-08, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 May 2026 12:56:46 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
>>
>>> On 2026-05-07, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 7 May 2026 12:59:57 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If there is one thing I'm sure of, is that eventually what has been
>>>>> considered "osbsolete, old and outdated" will come back again ...
>>>>
>>>> One idea that is *not* coming back is the one that says that the GUI
>>>> should be inextricably tied into the OS kernel.
>>>>
>>>> The rest of us are happy to leave that sort of thing in a museum.
>>>
>>> Was that ever a widely used idea?
>>
>> There was this system called “Microsoft Windows”. You may have heard of
>> it.
> 
> I've heard complaints about it...
> 
> Wasn't that intimately familiar with its architecture but I suppose that
> makes sense, and probably explains why the entire system would cack
> itself over GUI issues.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture_of_Windows_NT#/media/File:Windows_2000_architecture.svg>

Lawrence isn't familiar with the architecture either.