Originally posted by BradN
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Sadly, Two X.Org GSoC Projects Already Failed
Collapse
X
-
Last edited by smitty3268; 27 June 2014, 03:25 PM.
-
-
Originally posted by BradN View PostMaybe i'm in the minority but I think what X needs is aggressive refactoring and code cleanup in the name of maintainability. Backwards compatibility and network transparency are its strongest assets I think. Or at least, any X replacement should make those features first class citizens. We use network forwarding every day in particular, and on relatively old hardware too. It's usable even on a crappy 100 megabit network...
As for backwards compatibility, I think there needs to be a limit. Like, you can't remove a feature added 3 major releases ago or less. With that, we'd be able to clean up old crap nobody uses in newer releases, while keeping AT LEAST 3 major versions with a feature available for those who need it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by doom_Oo7 View PostSo we keep features from X9, X10, X11 ?
The key word here is "can". 99% Features will most likely live for more than 3 major versions, it just gives the project some breathing room when it comes to maintaining old and crappy code :P
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ericg View PostWayland. XWayland will handle backwards compatibility, Wayland can also do networking better than X.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ancurio View PostWayland does no networking whatsoever; buffers are passed directly via local system handles, and communication happens over unix sockets. The point is, it doesn't have to be. Frameworks like VNC have proven that accessing a desktop over the network can be handled (almost) completely separate from the windowing system.
*Just search "limitations of vnc", you'll find a few comparisons between VNC vs RDP vs X11 Network Transparency, VNC(-style) is the most flexible but its not the most efficient.All opinions are my own not those of my employer if you know who they are.
Comment
Comment