Re: Obsoleteness of X concept
- From: Temoto <temotor@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 04:38:10 -0700 (PDT)
On Aug 18, 6:50 pm, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeif...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Temoto <temo...@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Second, we-use-network. Very fine that i don't need to provide an IP
stack, firewall to see movie and browser. It can be done through
sockets and is configured such way by default. Very good. But why
anyway? Why should it be possible to run X server on some other
machine than mine? Anyone is really using it? Isn't it like dead
concept along with mainframes? I have laptop with such an good graphic
card, it can really draw graphic so well. Dedicated X drawing server
is really out of business here. I have a strong opinion that this is a
common situation. I believe it could be like branch of Xorg or config
option that runs faster because it really relies only on local
Why X should use network subsystem? Please, comment here.
This is actually incredibly useful, and I use it every day -- being
able to run gnumeric on my laptop, with the display appearing on my
desktop, makes life much, much easier for me. I think this is
definitely one of the differences between somebody who grew up on
Windows and somebody who grew up on Unix: having to actually be
physically at a computer to work with it seems horribly limiting to an
old Unix person, while working any other way seems useless to an old
There is crossplatform VNC. I've heard that its protocol is much more
network friendly than one of X.
Anyway, you're limited to screen and keyboard/mouse. There is no
remote sound and printers in X. Those are equally part of user
interface along with screen and keyboard.
Third, how to think different. There is a framebuffer kernel video
driver. What is wrong with it for using it instead of X? I understand
that all apps relay on X. It's a matter of lots code changes, i
understand all. Just theoretically, is there something wrong? Maybe
some performance issues? Like limiting kernel time execution or
something... i believe this could have relatively simple solution.
Does the framebuffer driver support acceleration?
No, but i'm trying to be positive.
Is there anything stopping it to support? Maybe it should stay
lightweight nice console option.
Is there anything stopping writing another "heavy framebuffer",
supporting modern videocards features? I guess no.
- Prev by Date: Xlib and mouse events
- Next by Date: Re: Obsoleteness of X concept
- Previous by thread: Re: Obsoleteness of X concept
- Next by thread: Re: Obsoleteness of X concept