X.org is just another implementation of X11. Re-implementing it isn't what I'm talking about. No, I don't expect it to be replaced, which I consider a problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System#Limitations_and...
Here's the issue: why did Apple not just use X? Important question.
There isn't a relationship between X and the start menu in my statement.
Yes, listened to the talk. Audio frameworks aren't why the universe isn't using Linux.
Apple didn't use X because OSX is based on NeXT and NeXT didn't use X. As to why NeXT didn't go with X, I don't know, but I assume it had something to do with the state of X in 1988, and those arguments probably aren't valid any more.
For me personally as a Linux user the audio framework is the one point that is causing me the most pain at the moment, and the one thing I really wish they would fix. If I could get audio working perfectly, I really cannot think of any other major complaint (other than a couple of pieces of Windows software I kind of wish I had) in my day to day Linux usage.
The link I put up earlier has some ref to Apple's reasoning. In the end, they decided to just replace it instead of just add the missing bits. That is really significant if X brings so much. I think it's just easier to get somewhere useful without the huge network of interested parties involved. I've watched Linux gyrate (and used it) since about 95, each year or so with a prediction it'll take over. My hope is that Google's OS will be a useful makeover for the mainstream.
There isn't a relationship between X and the start menu in my statement.
Yes, listened to the talk. Audio frameworks aren't why the universe isn't using Linux.