Talk:X Window System

Missing image
Cscr-featured.png
Featured article star

X Window System is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

Template:Onlinesource2004

Contents

1 Client vs Server

2 Common non-Unix X servers

3 Recent history of XFree86

4 "X Windows"

5 Screen shots

6 Technical details

7 More work needed towards Featured Article status

8 Network transparency

9 History of X is the history of the politics - refs needed!

10 Xaw = Project Athena?

11 Color Modes

12 X services and protocol interactions

13 more than negligible vs "significant"

14 Unicode support

15 Client-server diagram

16 x window on microsoft windows xp

17 Recent section changes

18 not necessary the right place, but

19 Way too much censorship by David Gerard on this topic

Client vs Server

Someone switched client & server recently; this could be a problem with people unfamiliar with X terminology. Obviously there is a clash. In X, the server is the display, and the client is the machine running the program. This is the reverse of the more common nomenclature seen elsewhere. Should the paragraph point this out? Pagan 06:55, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The article does exactly this in the ==Architecture== section. I wonder if that earlier mention of clients and servers is really needed. The concepts are covered well enough in the article anyway and if "network transparency" is really an important term to use, then it could be blended into the ==Architecture== section. Bevo 07:02, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You have to summarize the most important information immediately, and in particular what X is and what it does, rather than burying it several paragraphs down in a subsection. Steven G. Johnson 20:44, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

My elaboration in the intro was quickly reverted. I'm leaving it as is for now, but don't think that my extra words were extravagent. Anyone new to X needs some direct explanation of how "server" and "client" are used. The usual impulse is to think that remote machines are the servers (not the clients), but it's reversed with respect to proving "display services" in the X model. Bevo 20:21, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've just done a chunk of rewriting. I hope the current intro makes the point clear in not too many words. It's a major point for anyone trying to get their head around X (I have seen it explode brains) and needs to be made clear in the intro. - David Gerard 17:39, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

Common non-Unix X servers

Does anyone use WeirdX other than its developers? I thought Exceed was obscure until I had to administer it, and even then ... - David Gerard 00:57, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

I've taken out the word 'commonly' in the list of X servers for Windows. The problem is that there is no X server that can be said to be "commonly" used - it's a very small market without a dominant player at all at present. I suppose we could list whatever current software we can think of ... - David Gerard 10:21, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Recent history of XFree86

XFree86 is the most popular version. (MacOS X has more installations, but the X11 server is far from widely used.) Now, there's all the fun stuff with the recent history of XFree86 vs. Xouvert vs. Freedesktop.org/Keith Packard ... see [1] (http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=6157) and particularly the summary called "Grokking the situation" posted by "Karl" (sorry, no link for the single comment). Can any of this be digested for the article? Or perhaps the XFree86 article. - David Gerard 23:21, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

"X Windows"

David Gerard wrote: "reread NPOV. descriptive, not prescriptive. think GNU/Linux."

That's not relevant because there actually are no entities that officially use "X Windows" (both because that's wrong and because it might actually tick off Microsoft's lawyers). The phrase may be common, but it's wrong to imply that it is somehow not incorrect, in an unofficial context -- in fact odds are that most people who use(d) it know that it's incorrect. And they generally switch to simply "X" after finding out... --Shallot 12:29, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's a common usage. It's been common since before MS Windows 3.0. That it's officially incorrect (I don't use it myself) doesn't change that.

No, but it also doesn't change the fact it's still incorrect, officially or unofficially. --Shallot

And I hardly think Microsoft's lawyers are about to swoop down upon Wikipedia for this entry - David Gerard 12:42, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that they would. --Shallot

How about "generally considered incorrect"? I really don't think it should be said in a prescriptive manner. Also, there's using it deliberately for a purpose knowing it's officially deprecated, as per the UNIX Haters' Handbook - it's not going away. - David Gerard 13:10, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

I've just done a new version of ==Nomenclature==. What do you think of this one? - David Gerard 13:14, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

That's better, I guess. Thanks. --Shallot

Screen shots

What would be interesting is screenshots of various usual X Windows interfaces over the years. KDE and GNOME have screenshots. We need one for CDE (I'll get one from my Solaris 8 workstation tomorrow). But it would be really good to have the usual X interface as of 1987, 1991, etc. Earlier ones if such can be found. Any ideas where one would go looking? - David Gerard 23:46, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

Just added KDE, GNOME and CDE screenshots - the first two from their respective articles, the last taken by me today. They don't look perfect because the KDE and CDE shots are both 1280x1024 (5:4 aspect ratio) and the GNOME shot is 1600x1200 (4:3 aspect ratio). I don't want to change any of the screenshots for now, though, on the assumption we'll be able to get more. Must ask around some usual haunts ... - David Gerard 13:59, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

Some more screenshots, do with them what you will (all in the public domain):

~~DECwindows running on VMS V7.3-1 Alpha: [2] (http://www.lythe.org.uk/DECwindows.png) [3] (http://www.lythe.org.uk/DECwindows-2.png)~~ Or not. Let's try a real screenshot of DECwindows: [4] (http://www.lythe.org.uk/decwr.png). I know what the hell I'm doing...
A basic X session running twm etc: [5] (http://www.lythe.org.uk/X-Window-System-basic.png)
xterm-only X session: [6] (http://www.lythe.org.uk/X2.png)

—Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 23:21, 2004 Jul 2 (UTC)

Thank you! Those DECwindows shots are spectacularly ugly. Is that the default? God help us ...

For a shot of 'basic X', I think I'll be emailing the X luminaries themselves fairly soon as I mentioned on irc to see if they have anything from the late 1980s - David Gerard 00:22, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that is the default DECwindows/CDE desktop in all its fugly Motif glory :-) It's possible to change the colour scheme and fonts, but remote X-over-ssh-over-cablemodem is rather … painful, so I wasn't really inspired to spend too long making it look nice :-) I've heard noises from OpenVMS Engineering about porting KDE or GNOME, which would certainly be a nice improvement, but we'll see… —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 00:41, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)

Technical details

I've shifted the detailed technical architecture of X to be after the expository text. That's so people whose brains would fall out reading the technical stuff will still be able to get to the implementation and history sections first - David Gerard 19:33, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

Network transparency

As it is currently worded, the net-trans bit is far too complex, detailed and poorly worded. Making the intro stand-alone is fine, but that's not an excuse to just duplicate info. If network transparency belongs in the intro then it should be a simple mention of it, with more detail (including client/server and the apparent reversal of those roles) confined to later sections.Motor 16:50, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reverted - read the start of this very talk page. The talk page isn't write-only - David Gerard 13:15, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I did read it -- and I've just read it again to ensure I haven't overlooked anything. I also read the entire article from the point of view of a casual user looking for information on X -- which you don't seem to have done. Your comments, besides being rude, are an inadequate brush off. It might be worth you taking a step back before continuing this... you needn't worry, I'm not about to revert again immediately.

Going into the details of client/server and their seeming reversal in X, in an INTRODUCTION section, is utterly pointless and confusing for anyone reading this article. If network transparency is mentioned in the introduction, then it should be at the level of "run a program on one machine, see the results on another" and how X was designed with this in mind... with no mention of client/server and especially no mention of how the roles seem to be reversed. The intro is supposed to be a short, simple overview setting out the basics. Or do you seriously think anyone coming to the article curious about X's use of the terms server and client will only read the intro and give up? This is quite apart from the fact that it is poorly worded and confusing. As it stands, ~~the article is a bit of a mess~~ this bit of the article is a mess despite having lots of useful info. Motor 15:55, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, it's important. I've known far too many people not to be able to get their heads around X's usage of "client" and "server" - that's why it went in the intro in the first place. Secondly, X's fully functional network transparency is pretty much its secret sauce at present - Windows and MacOS both work on better layer separation these days than hitherto, but the remote display functionality doesn't work nearly as well as it does with X, where pretty much any X client can display to any other X server with full functionality.

Anyone confused about the roles of client and server in X is not going to read the introduction and give up -- they are looking for specific information. On the other hand, someone casually looking up X is going to find themselves overloaded with irrelevant details right away. Network transparency is an important part of X... even to the extent of deserving a brief and simple mention of the capability in the introduction. I'm not arguing for the removal of such information from the article. What I am arguing for is the removal of client/server and the apparent reversal of those roles from the introduction. It serves only to confuse. Anyone interested in those kind of details can find them later in the article.Motor 17:42, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is an article in depth - to serve as a potential standalone, the intro does have to mention the odd usage and the network transparency.

Precisely, it is an in-depth article and needs a quick introduction for the more casual reader. I'm thinking of the people who are new to Linux/FreeBSD, or just someone who has heard X mentioned and wonders what it is. Technical details in the article are important, but there is simply no need to jump into discussions of client/server names/roles in an introduction. You don't get people up to speed on a subject by burdoning them with irrelevant details immediately. Motor 17:42, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you can write something shorter and snappier for the intro that does cover the subject and something clearer for the Architecture section, please do try - the current paragraph in the intro was a compromise that was accepted.

I'll have a go later.Motor 17:42, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What do you think a casual reader wants? Who/what is the casual reader you are thinking of? - David Gerard 17:04, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See above. Motor 17:42, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

History of X is the history of the politics - refs needed!

I'm still trying to get the 'History' section to a usable state without actually interviewing Jim Gettys personally. (Besides, that'd be original research.) Does anyone have good references to hand? The history of X is really the history of the industry politics and fuckups. I've dredged through a pile of news articles, personal page rants from the '90s, etc. Does anyone know of a decent writeup of the history? - David Gerard 09:58, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Xaw = Project Athena?

I noticed that "Xaw" is a link to a non-existing page. I considered making it merely a redirect to Project Athena (even though it's just a stub right now), but I'm not sure if that's the correct answer. Opinions? --Joe Sewell 17:30, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Xaw is actually the Athena widget set. I'm not sure it should just be a redirect. I have the book on X11R6 here, I really should write it myself some time ... or other ... - David Gerard 23:10, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Color Modes

This section seems silly. Names like "DirectColor" and "PseudoColor" have no meaning to somebody reading an encyclopedia article about X. (And if you know what they mean, you probably don't need to be reminded what their names are.) If we're going to list them, we should describe what they are; otherwise this might as well be "X has 6 different foozleblarg modes: sneej, leezle, briggo, foopy, ..." - 4.16.250.40

You are entirely correct. I looked up documentation on this and couldn't find any online! I'll keep looking, but in the meantime I've commented out the color section ... if anyone is upset by that, please restore it in a way that actually explains each mode! - David Gerard 16:53, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are, IIRC, three colour models, TrueColor, PseudoColor and DirectColor. TrueColor and PseudoColor are, basically, RGB values. PseudoColor is a palette (colormap) that you can or cannot change. One of TrueColor and DirectColor is changeable, but I can't, off-hand, remember the correct one. vatine 17:36 2005-04-01

X services and protocol interactions

The five listed items at X services and protocol interactions don't really describe everything X does I think. It leaves out things like inter-client communication, authentication, and the lowly XBell. --fvw * 19:25, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} ;-)

I have the book on X11R6 ... packed in a box under a couple of other boxes. When I find it, the early history will get filled out in great detail, and the technical section will probably get a good kick as well. - David Gerard 18:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

more than negligible vs "significant"

I agree that "None of these systems have had more than negligible uptake" sounds like less use than "None of these systems have had a significant uptake", but on the other hand I think "[not] ... more than negligable" constitutes a rather uncomfortable double negative. Anybody have a third option? --fvw * 21:26, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

"none have had significant" sounds like there might be a small core of users out there. "none have had more than negligible" IMO more clearly indicates that pretty much only the developers go near them, and often not even them (e.g. Berlin dying of apathy). Only Berlin/Fresco and Y have had even Slashdot attention as X replacements that I know of; I think the sentence would start "none of these systems have had x notice". - David Gerard 18:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unicode support

Request: could anybody write about the current state of Unicode support in X? — Monedula 14:13, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hummmm good question! Anyone? - David Gerard 18:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did a quick google on "x11 unicode". Markus Krohn did Unicode fonts in 1999 [7] (http://www.sensi.org/lists/locale/y1999/msg00124.html), put them into XFree86 as of XF86 4.1 and offered them to X.org saying "hopefully they will be in X11R6.7"[8] (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs-fonts.html) - I presume they were. Clients (e.g. xterm) supporting Unicode had been available for a while in XF86. That last page says "hardly any software released before ~2001" supports Unicode, and that the X Logical Font Descriptor included a tag for Unicode from X11R6.4. X's support still isn't perfect - "X11 was never designed for Arabic, Syriac, Indic, and special libraries such as Pango have to be used for these scripts." http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/unicode.html#x11 indicates X11R6.6 had imperfect support for Unicode.

So basically, I'm not sure when you could put 'Unicode support' as a listed feature in the 'releases' chart. But if you want to beat the above into a para in a section or subsection (somewhere), feel free :-) - David Gerard 19:39, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Client-server diagram

Ta bu shi da yu pointed out on IRC that the 'Architecture' section would benefit from a diagram illustrating 'client-server' with examples. Perhaps an xterm and a web browser on the local machine, with an app client running on a remote machine. Anyone with a nice drawing package want to come up with something for nitpicking?

(Also, we could then distribute the screenshots a bit better through the article. Also need examples of what X11R1 looked like) - David Gerard 19:39, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First attempt. Could anyone who can work Inkscape better than I can come up with something nice based on this? I'd also like a more generic example of an app routinely run remotely than up2date - that sprang to mind because I was running it yesterday.

               user's workstation

     keyboard       mouse        display
    +--------+       /-\      +-----------+
    |mmmmmmmm|       | |      |           |
    +--------+       +-+      |           |
         |            |       +-----------+
         |            |             | 
         v            v             ^
         |            |             | 
+----------------------------------------------+
|        |            |             |          |
|        |            |             |          |
|        |            |             |          |
|    +-----------------------------------+     |
|    |                                   |     |
|    |               X server            |     |
|    |                                   |     |
|    +-----------------------------------+     |
|        |                  |           |      |
|        ^                  ^           |      |
|        |                  |           |      |
|        v                  v           |      |
|        |                  |           |      |
|    +-------------+  +-------------+   |      |
|    |             |  |             |   |      |
|    |   X client  |  |   X client  |   |      |
|    |(web browser)|  |   (xterm)   |   |      |
|    |             |  |             |   |      |
|    +-------------+  +-------------+   |      |
|                                       |      |
+---------------------------------------|------+
                                        |
                                        ^
                                        |
                                        v
                                        |
                               network  Z
                                        |
                                        |
      +---------------------------------|----+
      |                                 |    |
      |         +-------------------------+  |
      |         |                         |  |
      |         |      X client           |  |
      |         |      (up2date)          |  |
      |         |                         |  |
      |         +-------------------------+  |
      |                                      |
      +--------------------------------------+
                 remote server

"This X server takes input from a keyboard and mouse and displaying to a screen. Clients connecting to it include a web browser and an xterm on the local machine and a system updater running on a remote server. Note that the remote application runs just as it would locally."

If you've seen the X.org diagrams on how X works, a detailed version of the above (showing all the application layers, the video card/DRI, etc) based on one of those [9] (http://x.org/X11_protocol.html) would be really nice for the technical section as well. - David Gerard 15:29, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No-one drew it or suggested another remote app, so I've done one myself. Anyone wants to play with it, I can email you the SVG (Commons isn't accepting SVG uploads) or suggest changes here - David Gerard 15:49, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

x window on microsoft windows xp

is there a port for x window for microsoft windows xp? i found cygwin to have the ability to simulate x window - unfortunately it seems to be bound directly to the windows xp operating system i am running on my computer, rather then giving me the opportunity to connect to an x window client at some other place on the internet (i.e. my university mainframe).

thus, maybe someone can explain how the x window system on a given computer can communicate with an x window client far away?

thanks, --Abdull 00:23, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The way it usually works is you go to the other computer (telnet or ssh to it or walk over to it or whatever) and get it to start a window on the server computer. The other computer is the client, so it has to ask to connect to your computer, the server; so you have to tell the remote computer to ask to connect to your computer's screen. Yes, this could do with a clearer explanation ... anyone? - David Gerard 18:16, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've added an explanation to "Architecture". Does this make sense? Does anything there need to be clearer? (I'm trying to avoid a detailed prescriptive "how-to") - David Gerard 18:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Recent section changes

The page hit 30 kilobytes, but the technical section was still in need of great expansion (at least another 15KB), so I've spun it out as a separate article. Still in need of serious work.

I've added a section on the X user interface.

I also emailed the X.org and XFree86 mailing lists to ask for further input and missing bits. Jim Gettys is presently moving house, but when he's moved he should have some nice stuff for us :-D

Is there anything else the article needs before I take it to WP:FAC? - David Gerard 12:03, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nominated - David Gerard 01:22, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nominated - wk_muriithi Okay, that may not be the proper way of signing my name, but i hope the it does show my intention. And wonder whether there is any need to expand on X licensing history. See this for more information. [10] (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137703&cid=11515615)

If you want to support the nomination, go to WP:FAC :-) That looks like the typical Slashdot license flamewar - if there's something important to add about it, please do so - David Gerard 00:00, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

not necessary the right place, but

An interesting suggestion [11] (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=139019&cid=11636362)

Way too much censorship by David Gerard on this topic

I have see the manner in which certain Wikipedia Administrators use their status to effectively censor the development and maturity of a topic and I see it happening here. I've reviewed the valuable contributions of a LOT of people to this topic and what happens again and again is that David Gerard removes their work and replaces it with his own work which he obviously prefers. The whole topic suffers and ends up being, in this case, a pathetic misrepresentation of the truth that should otherwise exist here. Unfortunately there's no remedy for it and Wikipedia ends up being, for purposes of this topic, a useless and, shamefully, even a misleading monologue. It isn't right and it isn't fair to the readership that something which is supposed to contain the collaborative efforts of a lot of people ends up being little more than a broken story that represents the viewpoint of someone who doesn't even do 'X' for a living. Those of us who DO do 'X' for a living, and who do very well with it BECAUSE we understand it, well, we think that our contributions deserve better than removal under a specious explanation called RV. There have been way too many removals of TRUTH about X by this person here and I regret that one person can weild so much power to have been single-handedly responsible for it. GeneMosher 22:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I assume you're 207.189.131.233. It looks like the above should have gone to my talk page and the below to the article talk page:

I strenuously object to the way you butchered my enhancements to the X Window System. You weren't kidding when you recently asked for help with the page and said that contributions would be edited mercilessly. Why on earth would you remove mention of X supporting touchscreens, for instance? You owe us all an explanation, starting there. Your edit amounted to vandalism.

And why would you remove any mention that application specific GUI's can be built with X primitives, virtually forcing people to infer that the only kind of GUI's that can be built with X are desktops and Widget systems? That is just plain WRONG. Are you really that ignorant? You should get used to the idea that learning is a better way to spend your time than teaching with regard to this topic since you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the X Window System.

I make a very good living by developing X apps, selling X solutions worldwide and pushing the X Window System to its limits. I know damn well what it is and what it isn't, what it can do, and what it can't do. I resent your hatchet job on my work here in explaining what X is.

There are way too many people like you at Wikipedia who think that everything they don't understand or agree with is vandalism and that the only appropriate response that they need to exercise is to revert. Shame on you. GeneMosher 20:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Touch screens: I really doubt that touch screens are so very relevant to X in particular that they must be mentioned in the intro itself. Statistically, almost no-one uses a touch screen. Surely they're just another input device; we don't enumerate that X also works with tablets, touch pads, trackpoints, etc. This is not special to X in any way whatsoever.

"Moreover, the remote "server" does not serve up files to any local storage system or application located at the user's local display." - this does not make sense in context of its paragraph: you're switching meanings of "server" mid-paragraph.

X terminals: I'm sure you could, though examples of it being at all current common practice to build what is commonly recognised by the term "X terminal" would be good.

Common criticisms: you cut out several with no comment. Is hardware support now just dandy, and does X no longer control the display directly? "This facility has been added to X." Do you mean serving up :0 via VNC, or another new thing?

"X's network transparency requires the client application host and the remote display servers to operate in a complementary fashion." Yes, but what does that mean? (I know what it means - see LBX - but it's just dropped in there without explanation. Also, it's mixing the answer to the criticism way too closely with the criticism itself, which verges on advocacy.)

Your wording is clumsy and jargon-filled. Read this talk page and the FAC nomination. We have rank beginners here.

Finallly, remember to assume good faith, as doing so helps avoid falling into making personal attacks. - David Gerard 12:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm an acquaintance of Mr. Mosher's and thought I'd take a look at the article and discussion since he mentioned it in a conversation yesterday. I see you've added a defensive, personal attack of your own here, one which is irrelevant, of course. At least Mr. Mosher was focused on X while your attack is based solely on a specious claim that you understand Wiki style better than he does. I suspect that he would gladly concede that to you. But he's right about X as far as touchscreens go - touchscreens are everywhere, even if you've not noticed. Touchscreens in restaurants and retail establishments worldwide, they're running the touchscreen software paradigm that Mr. Mosher pioneered and helped to make popular. Touchscreens are on all the latest handheld devices, such as phones and PDAs, too. It's clear that he knows X and touchscreens, and that you don't, especially as X is used in remote GUIs.

If you don't actually build touchscreen X systems that span the globe, as Mr. Mosher does, then you couldn't possibly understand the deeper implications of X's versatility as a network transparent protocol and the value which it therefore has as an abstraction layer for virtually every kind of display and input device. X and touchscreens have something in common, actually. They are both widely misunderstood and misrepresented, even by people who benefit from them. The success of a technology is very much measured by the extent to which a user can benefit from it while being allowed to be totally ignorant of the technology. The way I see it, someone who is too busy making X and touchscreens do new and exciting things took a little time to make Wikipedia a more accurate source of information about X than it was. Then someone who describes himself as a Wikiholic infers from his perception of mastery of Wikipedia style elements a license to censor the work of others. At the very least, one shouldn't justify removal of a contribution by denigrating the contributor as a rank beginner. When you choose to swing a pendulum it surely will return.Bill Cannon 13:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see from Eugene Mosher why Gene put a strong focus on touchscreen point of sale terminals in the X article. You're right, touch screens are everywhere. But why is this particular to X (and not to, say, the many touch screens run by Windows), so very special it belongs in the first four paragraphs of the article? Not to mention the other points.

Also, you talk at length about Gene's work and knowledge (which I've just been reading up on) - but it's hard to tell that from what appears to be an idiosyncratic edit from an apparently hit-and-run (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=207.189.131.233) IP number, which in itself ("207.189.131.233", who is that at a glance?) carries no credibility.

If you could point out the bit that you think violates Wikipedia:No personal attacks, please do - David Gerard 16:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:X_Window_System"

Categories: Wikipedia featured articles