7 ms·

Wow, this seems to be a critical step towards the truly modern, networked, multimedia terminal(not an emulator?!) I’ve been fantasizing about since 1995. I com

Wow, this seems to be a critical step towards the truly modern, networked, multimedia terminal(not an emulator?!) I’ve been fantasizing about since 1995. I completely respect the project owners desire to fly under the radar, but man it sure seems like more contributors would be a good thing to help us finally move past the monstrous x11/xorg legacy.

earenndil 8y ago
I've been dreaming about that too, but the way I've thought about it is as built up from text terminals (perhaps starting with sixel?), also replacing the file i/o paradigm.
DaiPlusPlus 8y ago
Is “network terminal” still a useful target? Disregarding the “elegance” of the X model, isn’t there still merit to the integrated approach of Windows’ User32 and kernel-modec local high-performance, low-latency graphics? It’s not like Crysis players in 2007 were asking for remote terminal support then - or now.
- beagle3 8y ago
  Well, Citrix, Remote Desktop, TeamViewer, Rainway, various VNCs, AnyDesktop and a bunch of other systems show that remote access to desktops is an important requirement, for gamers as well. The lines between a "network terminal" and a "remote desktop" are essentially nonexistent.
  - DaiPlusPlus 8y ago
    Citrix, MS RDP, TeamViewer, VNC and the majority of those other tools you mentioned use fundamentally different architectures to X: they’re based on either local framebuffer mirroring (VNC, TeamViewer, etc) or proxying the local (2D) graphics and windowing API (Citrix, MS RDP). All of those systems are still based on fast local-only graphics and windowing systems, not the “network-first” design that X brings.
    - beagle3 8y ago
      The lines have blurred long time ago. RDP also has “draw lines” calls (which have not really been used in ages), and double buffered X client programs (as done in the majority of toolkits for the past 10 years or so) basically transfer only bitmaps these days. History is different, but practically they have been converging to a similar result.
      - tinus_hn 8y ago
        I don’t think Windows programs really used the ‘lines and brushes’ era apis anymore either.
        badsectoracula 8y ago
        GDI is still heavily used by most programs that use the Win32 API and all native controls are implemented using it.
        beagle3 8y ago
        Yes, but the RDP backend doesn't send them to the client that way anymore (and hasn't for years) - instead, it renders them locally and sends the rendered bitmap.
    - Teknoman117 8y ago
      Even weston has a RDP backend.
    - topspin 8y ago
      > the “network-first” design that X brings Is this design a failure? How many Citrix, MS RDP, TeamViewer, VNC, etc. users are there for every X user? 100? 1000? More? As others point out contemporary X isn't really network transparent. Extensions compromise network transparency for performance, among other reasons. This compromise is inherent to the requirements of popular desktop environments today. Is this not further evidence of failure of the design intent? Why has X not to contributed to mobile platforms? X is a native citizen of at least one of the major portable OSes (Linux) and not too far removed from the other (Darwin.) Yet no X. Cloud hosted gaming is upon us; Google, Microsoft, NVidia and others are building services. If X is the network transparent answer to rendering why is it not the basis for any of this? Successful designs experience growth beyond their original niche. Yet after 35 years X remains only the display system for a vanishingly small fraction of the desktop computing world, and an alternative has emerged to displace it even from that. I don't hate X. I use X heavily every day. But I don't have any illusions about its success or future.
Teknoman117 8y ago
To be honest, X hasn't been network transparent for the better part decade. Sure you can cut it back down to the point that it is, but the moment you want anything accelerated, no more network transparency. In my mind, the best possible way to go about replacing X is making something that suits the way computers work today and the way computers are trending. That's why I really like Wayland. The entire point is to optimize for the local experience and anything beyond that is candy. It's designed for accelerated graphics first, which is what most client side users are going to have. It's even more important from a laptop perspective because of just how much more efficient the GPU is at rendering graphics. As an aside, another great thing is that most the new features of linux and it's graphics stack that were created (at least in part) for Wayland are able to function completely outside of that environment. KMS, DRM, using full OpenGL or Vulkan without a display server, etc.

earenndil 8y ago

I've been dreaming about that too, but the way I've thought about it is as built up from text terminals (perhaps starting with sixel?), also replacing the file i/o paradigm.

DaiPlusPlus 8y ago

Is “network terminal” still a useful target? Disregarding the “elegance” of the X model, isn’t there still merit to the integrated approach of Windows’ User32 and kernel-modec local high-performance, low-latency graphics? It’s not like Crysis players in 2007 were asking for remote terminal support then - or now.

beagle3 8y ago
Well, Citrix, Remote Desktop, TeamViewer, Rainway, various VNCs, AnyDesktop and a bunch of other systems show that remote access to desktops is an important requirement, for gamers as well. The lines between a "network terminal" and a "remote desktop" are essentially nonexistent.
- DaiPlusPlus 8y ago
  Citrix, MS RDP, TeamViewer, VNC and the majority of those other tools you mentioned use fundamentally different architectures to X: they’re based on either local framebuffer mirroring (VNC, TeamViewer, etc) or proxying the local (2D) graphics and windowing API (Citrix, MS RDP). All of those systems are still based on fast local-only graphics and windowing systems, not the “network-first” design that X brings.
  - beagle3 8y ago
    The lines have blurred long time ago. RDP also has “draw lines” calls (which have not really been used in ages), and double buffered X client programs (as done in the majority of toolkits for the past 10 years or so) basically transfer only bitmaps these days. History is different, but practically they have been converging to a similar result.
    - tinus_hn 8y ago
      I don’t think Windows programs really used the ‘lines and brushes’ era apis anymore either.
      - badsectoracula 8y ago
        GDI is still heavily used by most programs that use the Win32 API and all native controls are implemented using it.
        beagle3 8y ago
        Yes, but the RDP backend doesn't send them to the client that way anymore (and hasn't for years) - instead, it renders them locally and sends the rendered bitmap.
  - Teknoman117 8y ago
    Even weston has a RDP backend.
  - topspin 8y ago
    > the “network-first” design that X brings Is this design a failure? How many Citrix, MS RDP, TeamViewer, VNC, etc. users are there for every X user? 100? 1000? More? As others point out contemporary X isn't really network transparent. Extensions compromise network transparency for performance, among other reasons. This compromise is inherent to the requirements of popular desktop environments today. Is this not further evidence of failure of the design intent? Why has X not to contributed to mobile platforms? X is a native citizen of at least one of the major portable OSes (Linux) and not too far removed from the other (Darwin.) Yet no X. Cloud hosted gaming is upon us; Google, Microsoft, NVidia and others are building services. If X is the network transparent answer to rendering why is it not the basis for any of this? Successful designs experience growth beyond their original niche. Yet after 35 years X remains only the display system for a vanishingly small fraction of the desktop computing world, and an alternative has emerged to displace it even from that. I don't hate X. I use X heavily every day. But I don't have any illusions about its success or future.

Teknoman117 8y ago

To be honest, X hasn't been network transparent for the better part decade. Sure you can cut it back down to the point that it is, but the moment you want anything accelerated, no more network transparency. In my mind, the best possible way to go about replacing X is making something that suits the way computers work today and the way computers are trending. That's why I really like Wayland. The entire point is to optimize for the local experience and anything beyond that is candy. It's designed for accelerated graphics first, which is what most client side users are going to have. It's even more important from a laptop perspective because of just how much more efficient the GPU is at rendering graphics. As an aside, another great thing is that most the new features of linux and it's graphics stack that were created (at least in part) for Wayland are able to function completely outside of that environment. KMS, DRM, using full OpenGL or Vulkan without a display server, etc.