> 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? 10

> 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.