Re: [xougen] Sound and X

[Shawn]

You are out gunned, but I'll reply to this anyway.

On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 18:44, Patrick McFarland wrote:
> On 10-Sep-2003, Tupshin Harper wrote:
> > Did you actually read all of the thread, including the various 
> > complications and issues that arise when you try to synchronize audio 
> > and video on a remote display if the sound server isn't an X extension? 
> > I'm not saying they are impossible to resolve any other way, but it 
> > certainly *adds* complexity to have the sound protocol be external to 
> > the display protocol.
> 
> Yes I did, and I realized people think X is more than it actually is.
> X is a windowing system, not a sound manager. No matter the arguments the
> pro-MAS side have used, you're all missing the point that its a windowing
> system. This is why X was created, and this is what it is for.

It was intended to be a network transparent desktop, and since
  1. Networks were slow
  2. No common hardware even did video at all
  3. Sound was usually MIDI
...the word "desktop" only meant "windowing system".

> > Is an X application used by the blind all about graphics?
> 
> Why would someone blind be using a windowing system? Im not trying to be 
> funny,
> but I would think a blind person would be better off with something that 
> doesnt
> need the kind of spacial skills using X would need.

What a total troll.

> > To me, X is an I/O mechanism. It presents information to the user, and 
> > it receives input from the user.
> 
> It has a I/O mechanism for graphics and user input. But that doesnt define 
> what
> X is. 

You're just spouting a bunch of old-man mainframe attitude. Kiss our
young (at least at heart) asses.