>Look at system time
>Date is 24/03/16
>2016
>look in /bin
>Xorg is a file and exists
>Look in htop
>Xorg is a process and is running.
>Look in /lib
>libX11.so is a file and is linked with other programs in the system, and is also loaded into memory.
>Look in /usr/include
>X11 is a directory and exists
>Go to X.org
>It resolves to an IP
Why is this allowed?
>>53659280
Exactly.
>>53659360
I am questioning the meaning of your post, not existence of X.
>>53659374
I'll summarise:
>It's 2016
>X is still a thing
>>53659408
My post is already summarized but I will repeat it:
> ?
Here's also clarification repeated:
> I am questioning the meaning of your post, not existence of X.
>>53659422
The meaning of my post is this:
>It's 2016
>X is still a thing.
In other words, X is a thing in 2016.
Questions?
>>53659268
hey man, howd you tell if the lib was loaded into memory? this is useful information that id like to use sometime
>>53659474
Yes. I question your sanity.
>>53659478
It's simple logic.
Several programs such as firefox, pcmanfm, and xterm are currently running.
Both and linked with libX11.
Therefore, libX11.so is loaded into memory, it has to be.
>>53659486
You question my sanity? even though you're the one okay with X existing in 2016?
I question your sanity way more than you question mine.
>>53659509
well then i suppose im trying to ask how you found out what it was linked against
>>53659474
Why are you acting like it's such a terrible thing? There are other display systems for Unix currently being developed; go use one of those if X triggers you so.
>>53659509
> Therefore, libX11.so is loaded into memory, it has to be.
It does not.
What makes you not okay with X existing in 2016?
>>53659520
You can use binutils, but I didn't need to.
I can clearly see the xterm window, it is quite obviously linked with libX11, otherwise it wouldn't be there.
>>53659528
>>53659539
X is extremely dangerous malware in wide use on Linux systems today, how is that not a problem?
Wayland is still in development.
Honestly X should've been completely replaced many years ago.
>>53659558
>X is extremely dangerous malware
You are misinformed. X is something else.
>>53659558
IPv4 should have been replaced many years ago.
Nothing wrong with X.
>>53659568
>X is something else.
Are you sure you're thinking of the same thing I am?
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~magi/personal/humour/Computer_Audience/X:%20Dangerous%20Virus!.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIctzAQOe44
X is a dangerous virus in wide use.
>>53659607
>Nothing wrong with X.
Literally everything is wrong with X.
There isn't anything that is right with X.
>>53659611
You have difficulties noticing difference between reality and fantasy. I suggest a visit to a doctor.
>>53659620
It works fine unlike wayland does when I last tried it.
>>53659611
>hates X because he's too dumb to configure it right or with shitty drivers
>parrots technical arguments he doesn't understand
>>53659651
The only person who doesn't understand the "technical arguments" is you, because you still think that X isn't garbage.
>>53659680
Also, my Intel drivers work great under X, no problems.
That doesn't change the fact that X isn't a complete pile of smelly garbage.
>>53659611
>http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~magi/personal/humour/
You must be retarded,
>>53659680
I'm not saying X doesn't have problems,
I'm saying you're a dumb shit.
>>53659698
x11 is the best things that you have complained about.
Where is your graphics server program anon. I'd love to see your code to your solution?
>Stop fucking bitching.
>Cuked cunts always bitch
>Fix your life and stop bitching about software you know almost nothing functionally about.
>>53659558
>X is extremely dangerous malware in wide use on Linux systems today, how is that not a problem?
It isn't. It has some flaws, and in some configurations (but not any default ones) has some security implications, but it is not malware.
>Wayland is still in development.
So are many things that are in daily use by people.
>Honestly X should've been completely replaced many years ago.
Probably true, but there is no compelling alternative yet.
>>53659611
So that first link, did you take the content of that page at face value?
>>53659713
(Not OP/anon)
>I second this
No where did I site anon claiming x is not garbage. I do however see how anon came up with saying you're a dumb shit.
>Put google and youtube done and end yourself.
>>53659727
>Probably true, but there is no compelling alternative yet.
Wayland
>>53659741
Wayland is not an alternative to X.
It does like 1% of what X does
>>53659741
Tell me 16 functional difference between x11 and wayland.
Start with how it is faster?
Start with how configuration files are different?
Go!
>Also prove those two statements
>Inb4 you know nothing internally functional and factual about ether without google.
>hello world in xorg 110 lines
>hello world in wayland >300 lines
>>53659638
same thing. Drives me crazy. It is so close, but it always manages to shit the bed on something I use
