Fedora COSMIC Desktop Spin Being Considered

[anda_skoa]

The "X11 protocol" is a file format defined in bytes, an X11 server is identical in operation to an HTTP server or FTP server, instead of hypertext or flat files it transfers keyboard/video/mouse data "as a file in the X11 format".

You always transfer some sort of data in a certain format across the socket as the low level concept is just a stream of bytes.

I assumed you meant that Unix domain sockets allow to pass file descriptors as part of such data transmissions.
Which allows very efficient handover of of larger data blocks than transmitting the actual data over socket.

One of the main difference between a file/http/ftp server and a display server.

X11 and Wayland does exactly the same, the Unix domain socket does not magically later is behavior or capability depending on which of the two protocols are passing through it.

if remote it goes over tcpip

Rarely used since remote connections are usually handled via tunneling, e.g. X11 forwarding via SSH.
Which effectively means Unix domain sockets on both sides being "tied" via the tunnel.

if local it transfers over IPC.

Indeed and that is also the communication channel between Wayland clients and their display server.

wayland doesnt do anything like that

It does exactly do the same thing.

its much lower level, and is defined in terms of system calls like vulkan or opengl

You are confusing content rendering with client/server communication.

On both Wayland and X11 clients can render their content via various techniques and the communicate the result to the respective display server.
The most efficient way to do that in both cases is to pass just a handle to the buffer through the socket.
Especially if the client rendered on the GPU via Vulkan, OpenGL or hardware video decoder, because then the actual data never leaves the GPU memory.

On this level there is virtually no difference between any of the display server approaches, including original Mir or Arcan.
These are the features of the shared system layers and the most efficient way to do these things.

In any case we've again moved quite off the topic at hand.

Any of those display servers is capable of providing the functionality to lock the screen.
It is just very uncommon for an X11 server to do that but it is still a choice the ones implementing it have.

COSMIC developers might also choose not to do it but could do so if they wanted to avoid some of the difficulties incurred by other approaches

[mSparks]

X11 and Wayland does exactly the same,

Exactly, even to the point of generally using exactly the same system libraries (on linux at least)

Where they differ is in the design choices.

X11 clearly defines a highly extensible communication protocol with error checking and correction

wayland doesnt.

[anda_skoa]

X11 clearly defines a highly extensible communication protocol with error checking and correction

wayland doesnt.

Of course it does.

Again one of the approaches by most display servers.

Original Mir differed a bit by keeping the protocol internal and primarily providing a client library, but in principle still the same thing under the hood.

[mSparks]

Of course it does.

where is the link to the byte meanings then?