Sir yes Sir ...
Guys, it's the X Window System, X, X.org or XFree86. It is NOT X-Windows.
Unless it is, "I am an ex-Windows user."
Sir yes Sir ...
No offense CGA, I always saw that as a weaker nag point.
Kind of like telling a Miller, Budweiser, or Pabst drinker that the real beer that you are drinking is an ale as opposed to a lager, bock, porter, etc.
Most people wont care even if you tell them and they do understand. Perhaps I am getting to liberal in my older age. I remember actually getting ape over this at the 2600 meetings. Now I find more useful things to get bent over.
While I agree with you Schotty, since we don't want to have incorrect terms on our forums as that would get some new Linux users confused (or it might have other negative aspects), I would just say rename the forum (i'm not sure if it is Easy or not but yeah) to X-Window System since there are still some using XFree86 and others using Xorg
Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.
#350566 Registered Slackware Linux User.
I am writing a syllabus for an introductory Linux course and one of the text books I am reviewing has a statement to the effect of "...Linux uses a graphical shell called X Windows, which can use different programs called Windows Managers. Some of the more popular Windows Managers are Motif, KDE and Caldera." I was simply flabbergasted at the level of inaccuracy and ineptitude displayed by the author of this text.
Yes, it is a minor point to say that it is not "X Windows" much like it is argued that it is a minor point to bicker over GNU/Linux vs Linux. I don't worry much about it in "The Real World(tm)", but on a technical forum such as this I feel that we should aim to correct in our terminology.
I agree with CGA on this. I've seen too many users telling me the wrong thing and when I try to correct, they think I AM the idiot who don't know what I'm talking about just because some guy wrote it wrong on some book.
I remember some guy writing on a well known IT publication (I think it was ITWorld or something) that Linux is at version 2.2 and Windows already was in version 5 (which he apprently mean NT5). When I told them that Linux KERNEL was in version 2.2 and Red Hat was in version 7.2, they thought I was smoking some crack.
If it was the wrong info, we should always try to correct it. It's not like arguing KDE vs Gnome or Vi vs Emacs (although I love that).