Originally posted by erendorn
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
We Have Mir & Wayland, But There Still Could Be X12
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Remote User View PostNo, I do not send 'dumb images' across the network. I use Xlib to render the GUIs. You are making the same assumptions that nearly everyone else makes, that anyone doing remote display is NOT doing it with the X protocol, and they, like you, are wrong in your assumptions and in any conclusions you draw from them.
Otherwise, I'm still of the opinion (shared by other posters, apparently), that what you need is a remote rendering toolkit, not a given display server that happens to have such a toolkit embedded in it.
That is certainly a better design for any future application, and legacy applications, well, are bound to use legacy systems.
Comment
-
Originally posted by erendorn View PostOtherwise, I'm still of the opinion (shared by other posters, apparently), that what you need is a remote rendering toolkit, not a given display server that happens to have such a toolkit embedded in it.
If you're not going to make it a standard, how is every app going to display on any device you happen to be using? X11 allows me to run Unix apps and display on any variant of Unix, Windows, and pretty much every other OS that has more than minimal display capability, because they all have to support the same protocol.
And, yes, most apps I run remotely quite clearly don't send bitmaps over the X protocol, because performance on the ones that do sucks ass, and performance on the ones that don't send them sucks ass if I have to switch to an alternate method of network rendering which does convert them to bitmaps.
Comment
-
Originally posted by erendorn View PostOtherwise, I'm still of the opinion (shared by other posters, apparently), that what you need is a remote rendering toolkit, not a given display server that happens to have such a toolkit embedded in it.
However, I do not see a reason to make a X12 protocol, really. That would probably just fragment things even more.
Originally posted by movieman View PostIf you're going to have a standard remote rendering toolkit, why not, you know, make it part of the standard display server?
If you're not going to make it a standard, how is every app going to display on any device you happen to be using? X11 allows me to run Unix apps and display on any variant of Unix, Windows, and pretty much every other OS that has more than minimal display capability, because they all have to support the same protocol.
And, yes, most apps I run remotely quite clearly don't send bitmaps over the X protocol, because performance on the ones that do sucks ass, and performance on the ones that don't send them sucks ass if I have to switch to an alternate method of network rendering which does convert them to bitmaps.Last edited by mrugiero; 04 October 2013, 12:31 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by erendorn View PostBut maybe my assumptions work better with respect to the post and user I was actually replying to?
Otherwise, I'm still of the opinion (shared by other posters, apparently), that what you need is a remote rendering toolkit, not a given display server that happens to have such a toolkit embedded in it.
That is certainly a better design for any future application, and legacy applications, well, are bound to use legacy systems.
As far as 'legacy systems', well, I have no idea what you mean in the context of this discussion unless you want to provide a few relevant examples. Would you make your point, again?Last edited by Remote User; 04 October 2013, 12:53 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Remote User View PostYeah, well, you and a couple of others do not have or use remotely rendered applications but have some opinions about people who do, then there are those of us who DO have and use remote rendering toolkits, (mine since 1995) and remote rendering gets better with each release of the X display server the xlib client libraries, ssh and Linux.
As far as 'legacy systems', well, I have no idea what you mean in the context of this discussion unless you want to provide a few relevant examples. Would you make your point, again?
In a discussion about the successors of X11, the legacy system is X11.
So I'll make my point again:
a) Remote rendering is a toolkit thing (even in X11, it really is akin to a toolkit)
b) Toolkits can be made separate from display server (there are already multi platforms toolkits)
the hypothesis is:
c) There shouldn't be too many things in the display server (that I cannot demonstrate, so feel free to disagree. but it seems to be the common opinion of most of the X server's devs)
And then, the point:
If you make a new display server, instead of making one with a remote rendering toolkit in it, you can (and thus, from c, should) make a display server and a separate remote rendering toolkit (or readily use one if such thing exists).
And, from the user point of view, applications that cannot be ported will have to use X11 anyway, because porting to the new display server or the new toolkit is the same thing. Application that can will work at least as well as before, except that they will not be limited in either the server or the client side system (if someone ports the toolkit to new display servers). So making them separate is again transparent or positive.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Remote User View PostYeah, well, you and a couple of others do not have or use remotely rendered applications but have some opinions about people who do, then there are those of us who DO have and use remote rendering toolkits, (mine since 1995) and remote rendering gets better with each release of the X display server the xlib client libraries, ssh and Linux.
As far as 'legacy systems', well, I have no idea what you mean in the context of this discussion unless you want to provide a few relevant examples. Would you make your point, again?
Also to get xlib based remote rendering, use XWayland.Last edited by Akka; 04 October 2013, 01:35 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by dee. View PostWhat would the advantage be of renaming Wayland to X-something?
Comment
-
Originally posted by erendorn View PostNote that most of it is remote displaying and not remote rendering.
Remote rendering is sending commands across the network, and rendering on the client.
Remote displaying is rendering on the server, and send rendered parts across the network.
The first is what the core X11 protocol is capable of. Because it acts as a toolkit.
But extensions of the protocol used by 90% of X apps are not remote rendering capable (because most of other toolkits, including gtk and qt, render render themselves and give bitmaps to the X server), and so you only get remote displaying.
Which is achievable by any display server, really.
It is, as other people said here, akin to unoptimized VNC. It certainly works, but it surely isn't a compelling reason to keep X11 architecture.
David Chisnall looks at what is really at the core of Apple's operating system and where it came from.
The fuss over Wayland and Mir seems to be a repeat of what Apple did and I do not see the point. The argument "we are doing it because we can" is fine, but I would prefer to see it done without the hype. The only way that a different display server could improve things would be if they was already room for improvement and I do not see it with Xorg.Last edited by ryao; 04 October 2013, 02:56 PM.
Comment
Comment