Your post hasn't addressed the point of the article, which is that drivers should be able to fail without destroying the users unsaved work.
Great, some X drivers suck. That's no excuse for losing data.
I'm also saddened that a post asking 'where is the code' as if that's a prerequisite to having an opinion on software is being nodded up on Hacker News.
Do you by chance also have an opinion on politics? Have you drafted a bill to support these opinions? No, I didn't think so.
No, the point of the article is that "X is old and bloated, and that's why it crashes when I'm resizing a video, so it should be deprecated". And that's not sound technical reasoning, and is factually inaccurate.
Windows graphics drivers that suck can also make you lose data. And neither Microsoft, nor your computer vendor can prevent you from installing drivers that suck, and losing data as a consequence. The same goes with X: if you use a closed-source binary blob that the X developers cannot diagnose, fix or improve, that simply doesn't work with XVideo in a composited environment, you can't blame X for the data you lost. Or would you blame Microsoft for the data you lost because of a crappy graphics driver that they didn't ship or lead you to use?
As for "Where is the code?", my point was: without access to any in-depth technicality about how the Windows graphics stack actually manages to isolate crashes (assuming that it's actually a merit of it), claiming that Microsoft has "shown" how it should be done and all X needs to do is follow is rather off the mark. Microsoft may have implemented a high-quality graphics stack that's more stable than X, at least in certain scenarios. That doesn't mean that they have illustrated how it's done in a technical sense, or that their techniques are actually applicable to X, which has an entirely different architecture.
Yes, and all it provides is anecdotal evidence. Do you have a link to Microsoft's tech specs for the Vista / 7 graphics stack where I can find factual evidence? Probably no, because they're only made available to graphics chip manufacturers under strict NDAs, hence "Where's the code?".
My point with the Windows graphics driver example is that if you plug untrusted / untested / uncertified / crappy software into otherwise stable software, you can't hold the latter responsible for the unpredictable behavior you may get. It's not specific to Windows, X or any other software or platform.
'My point with the Windows graphics driver example is that if you plug untrusted / untested / uncertified / crappy software into otherwise stable software, you can't hold the latter responsible for the unpredictable behavior you may get.'
I disagree. Stable software is well designed enough to not let unstable software break it - you have evidence of this in the article, although you as you've mentioned you chose not to believe it.
Great, some X drivers suck. That's no excuse for losing data.
I'm also saddened that a post asking 'where is the code' as if that's a prerequisite to having an opinion on software is being nodded up on Hacker News.
Do you by chance also have an opinion on politics? Have you drafted a bill to support these opinions? No, I didn't think so.