LXQt Now Has Full Qt5 Support

[ownagefool]

What about a stripped down Kwin? Shouldn't be too difficult to cut out the bloat. Personally I would prefer as little special effects as possible.
Openbox on Kwin + Wayland would be good no?

No idea. not a programmer.

You can have all the bloat in the world, if it's not part of the executed code path it's not going to make a tangible difference to performance. The problem with the K Desktop, from my perspective, is it has too much shiney and too many services turned on by default, historically. That's why I thought and RazorQt was a great idea and LxQt is a great idea. Couple this with kde going more modular and I'm sure this is only going to benefit the Qt ecosystem.

[erendorn]

No, I'm not confused. Both work *right now*. Anyone advocating the networking to be only at the toolkit level does not understand reality, mainly that you simply cannot rewrite the world.

Networking has to work with all apps, therefore it cannot be at toolkit level.

Yes, you are confused. Network displaying "for all apps" works at the server level, and is available for X, windows, wayland, OS X, probably mir (if not now, it will be when mir is ready), and can be done using plenty of solutions. But this has nothing to do with the network transparency of X: on all platforms above, the "all apps solutions" render on server and only send pixels.
Because it is not very difficult to send pixels, there is no reason it would not work on any given platform (again, see the list of available software doing that and tell me why it wouldn't work for wayland).

Network rendering on the other hand, which is what people refer to when they talk about X and networking, and happens when the rendering is done on the client while only instructions transfer on the network, mostly only exist for X with the X toolkit.
If you require a network rendering solution that works for all apps, fat chance, it stopped existing a long time ago, it certainly doesn't exist today, and won't exist in wayland.
If you require network rendering for a given app, build a network rendering toolkit for it.

[caligula]

I'm sorry but just how does that contradict what he said?

If you have good enough hardware, X can feel like it's network transparent. You don't know if you're running the apps locally or via LTSP/X tunnel.

[ua=42]

I'm sorry but just how does that contradict what he said?

If you were using a network transparent application you probably only need a dial up connection. Not a 1 Gbps connection. In fact the way that X sends screenshots (which is what it does for all gtk, qt, wt, etc applications) is very inefficient. It sends an uncompressed bitmap (2-5Megabytes) for each frame and has to do several roundtrips of messages just to send it. This means you need a 16-40+ megabit connection to use X remotely.

Wayland and virtually every other remote application will send only screen sections that have changed and will compress the data for transport. Which means even in the worst case scenario (full screen video, like a movie or a video game) you will likely only need a 3-6 megabit connection. With the amount dropping much lower for applications that aren't updating the entire screen every frame.

[erendorn]

If you were using a network transparent application you probably only need a dial up connection. Not a 1 Gbps connection. In fact the way that X sends screenshots (which is what it does for all gtk, qt, wt, etc applications) is very inefficient. It sends an uncompressed bitmap (2-5Megabytes) for each frame and has to do several roundtrips of messages just to send it. This means you need a 16-40+ megabit connection to use X remotely.

Wayland and virtually every other remote application will send only screen sections that have changed and will compress the data for transport. Which means even in the worst case scenario (full screen video, like a movie or a video game) you will likely only need a 3-6 megabit connection. With the amount dropping much lower for applications that aren't updating the entire screen every frame.

Indeed! Anyone can see how the two approaches compare by playing a game through X forwarding and then through steam remote play/
None of them are "network transparent", but at least on is "network usable"

[jrch2k8]

BTW some fun facts for the confused crowd of "Network Transparency OMG" it doesn't work at all since several Xorg releases ago when it got heavily broken and i think is in the actual "chop that sh1t" list of Xorg for future releases, so don't upgrade your RHEL 4/BSD with Xfree86 because it won't work(or will give you a SIGSEGV fest).

all the other facts about network usable are true but anyway things like VNC/RDP/TeamViewer/etc are way more efficient than X will ever be, so drop those yellow pants and the 80's behind

[Ansla]

BTW some fun facts for the confused crowd of "Network Transparency OMG" it doesn't work at all since several Xorg releases ago when it got heavily broken and i think is in the actual "chop that sh1t" list of Xorg for future releases, so don't upgrade your RHEL 4/BSD with Xfree86 because it won't work(or will give you a SIGSEGV fest).

I don't know where you got this, but it used to work verry well with the latest X server about 2 years ago when I last needed to run a stupid (Motif) app that only works on Solaris/SPARC64.

all the other facts about network usable are true but anyway things like VNC/RDP/TeamViewer/etc are way more efficient than X will ever be, so drop those yellow pants and the 80's behind

Yes, there are more efficient ways to do it for new applications, but I sure hope XWayland will support true X network transparency as noboby will update that legacy SPARC64 app and I might need to run it again in the future.

[bison]

Don't quote me but I think I remember reading that they are planning to use kwin.

The screenshots on the lxqt.org front page appear to be using kwin, so that's probably right.

[caligula]

If you were using a network transparent application you probably only need a dial up connection. Not a 1 Gbps connection. In fact the way that X sends screenshots (which is what it does for all gtk, qt, wt, etc applications) is very inefficient. It sends an uncompressed bitmap (2-5Megabytes) for each frame and has to do several roundtrips of messages just to send it. This means you need a 16-40+ megabit connection to use X remotely.

Wayland and virtually every other remote application will send only screen sections that have changed and will compress the data for transport. Which means even in the worst case scenario (full screen video, like a movie or a video game) you will likely only need a 3-6 megabit connection. With the amount dropping much lower for applications that aren't updating the entire screen every frame.

You're wrong. The network transparency property does not state anything about bandwidth requirements. I see what you mean, but it's just not true. Given a fast enough connection even GTK3/Qt5 apps are usable over a network and look exactly the same. They don't send screenshots like you said. For example if I use MacOSX X client, I can freely move the windows and it does not repeat sending the window contents. That's when you remotely use apps & windows, not desktop. Even if RDP/VNC require less bandwidth IMHO they're just screen cloning apps and not network transparent in any way.

The connection bw is not a problem anymore. You can update 1920x1080 truecolor screen 20 times per second in a gigabit lan. GTK2/Qt4 still support some X features which means theey don't update whole screen so you actually get decent FPS unless you run a browser/video on fullscreen. I've tried it.

[jrch2k8]

I don't know where you got this, but it used to work verry well with the latest X server about 2 years ago when I last needed to run a stupid (Motif) app that only works on Solaris/SPARC64.


Yes, there are more efficient ways to do it for new applications, but I sure hope XWayland will support true X network transparency as noboby will update that legacy SPARC64 app and I might need to run it again in the future.

1. Solaris runs pre KMS Xorg server same as BSD for obvious reasons, so is very very old compared to linux's and im not sure if Motif runs on Linux anymore to be honest since openmotif looks quite dead

2. XWayland will not support network transparency so don't hold your breath since is not even working on post KMS Xorg anymore and like XFont and the likes no one seems to be insane enough to touch that code anymore