4 ms·

Well, Citrix, Remote Desktop, TeamViewer, Rainway, various VNCs, AnyDesktop and a bunch of other systems show that remote access to desktops is an important req

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.
  - orbifold 8y ago
    There is an XServer for macOS and it allows me to successfully use proprietary cad tools from the comfort of my mac, without having to login to a centos 6 installation via thinlinc and use some atrocious window manager.
    - topspin 8y ago
      macOS is yet another example where, despite X being present and mature at the time Apple decided how they would render stuff, they went their own way with yet another successful non-network-first design.
- XorNot 8y ago
  Windows Remote Desktop is essentially a perfect remote desktop experience. Being able to walk away from my desktop, login remotely and get fast, properly scaled desktops, and then walk back to that machine and log back in to the same environment is something that can't be efficiently replicated on Linux with X, as far as I know. Like, you can get "near" the concept - but definitely not there.
  - madmulita 8y ago
    We have this working in all our desktops in our bank branches using freenx.
  - Zardoz84 8y ago
    I got a far better experience using NX on a slow internet connection many years ago. MS RDP, VNC, TeamViewer or NoMachine modern solutions are really far inferior solutions compared when X was network transparent and some one managed to add async + intelligent cache over it (NX protocol)

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.
- orbifold 8y ago
  There is an XServer for macOS and it allows me to successfully use proprietary cad tools from the comfort of my mac, without having to login to a centos 6 installation via thinlinc and use some atrocious window manager.
  - topspin 8y ago
    macOS is yet another example where, despite X being present and mature at the time Apple decided how they would render stuff, they went their own way with yet another successful non-network-first design.
XorNot 8y ago
Windows Remote Desktop is essentially a perfect remote desktop experience. Being able to walk away from my desktop, login remotely and get fast, properly scaled desktops, and then walk back to that machine and log back in to the same environment is something that can't be efficiently replicated on Linux with X, as far as I know. Like, you can get "near" the concept - but definitely not there.
- madmulita 8y ago
  We have this working in all our desktops in our bank branches using freenx.
- Zardoz84 8y ago
  I got a far better experience using NX on a slow internet connection many years ago. MS RDP, VNC, TeamViewer or NoMachine modern solutions are really far inferior solutions compared when X was network transparent and some one managed to add async + intelligent cache over it (NX protocol)