6 ms·

Xorg remoting was poorly designed to accomodate DRI/DRM, video card acceleration and had adequate performance to only display primitives on screen. Thats the re

Xorg remoting was poorly designed to accomodate DRI/DRM, video card acceleration and had adequate performance to only display primitives on screen. Thats the reasons of poor Xorg remoting adoption. I dont remember seeing anyone in this decade using it - it hands down lost to vnc/nx and rdp.

0x8BADF00D 7y ago
Yeah, VNC is just way better. Even running a local Docker container and using X11 forwarding is extremely slow.
- jolmg 7y ago
  It depends on how you define better. VNC may be faster, but it's just because X carries a lot of historical cruft, I believe. Usability-wise, X is more flexible. I can move individual windows between computers in X. I can't do that with VNC. I wouldn't mind doing the jump to Wayland if it were as flexible as X, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Correct me if I'm wrong.
  - altmind 7y ago
    what's the point of running program locally, to be rendered locally, sending the primitives to Xorg server to be displayed somewhere else? is it using Xorg as a network proxy?
    - josteink 7y ago
      I think you got it kinda backwards, but due to confusing naming you wouldn’t be the first. It’s more like I’m logging into a remote server (using stuff like SSH), starting applications there and getting the GUI up on my local desktop, like any other local window/app, due to X-forwarding (back to my Xorg server). It’s not perfect, but it sure is a lot more “natural” and integrated into your desktop than VNC or RDP. I hope we can keep something similar with Wayland (using maybe XWayland or other compatibility kludges). I think it’s pretty nice.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
        RDP has had remote app for a long time now, which is essentially the same thing: run program on remote machine, forward its window to local.
        mindcrime 7y ago
        Interesting, I've never heard of that facility before. I guess it wasn't promoted very heavily? Or maybe it's just because RDP comes from the MS world and I try very hard to avoid Windows and anything Windows-centric unless forced to. Anyway, thanks for sharing that. I'll look into it. Here's some info on RemoteApp for anybody else who's interested. https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/Enterprise-Mobility-Security/Introducing-RemoteApp-and-Desktop-Connections/ba-p/246803 https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/Enterprise-Mobility-S... https://social.technet.microsoft.com/wiki/contents/articles/2345.publish-a-remoteapp-application-on-remote-desktop-service.aspx https://social.technet.microsoft.com/wiki/contents/articles/...
        magicalhippo 7y ago
        > Or maybe it's just because RDP comes from the MS world and I try very hard to avoid Windows and anything Windows-centric unless forced to. It'll be due to that. For the most part it works really well, though still not flawless after all these years.
        josteink 7y ago
        Thanks for the links! Reading those though, I’m kind of underwhelmed. You have to have a dedicated Windows Terminal Server installation (which I’m sure has expensive and complicated licensing), on that you have to “publish apps” (which seems like a process in itself), on the client you need to subscribe to feeds. And after about 100 such individual steps... magic. With X11 I just forward a socket, launch a normal program normally, and everything just works. That’s just so much simpler, so much easier to work with and easier to understand. I can do it casually, on demand, when I need it. No preparation needed. That Windows thing... looks expensive and something you which takes planning.
        7y ago
    - baq 7y ago
      in the usual case you ssh to a big fat box (the server) and run X clients; the X server is running on your ssh client box.
  - DonHopkins 7y ago
    It's not "historical cruft" that makes it slow. It's the fundamental architecture of X-Windows that makes it slow. Computers these days are network bound, not CPU or memory bound. It's not sluggish because it's executing too much code or running out of memory or too complicated. It's sluggish because it's making the wrong decisions to do the wrong things at the wrong times in the wrong places.
  - m463 7y ago
    I run proxmox on one system to run a few VMs. I view the vm console displays remotely in the browser using novnc. I thought it was pretty cool the first time I used it.
- renox 7y ago
  Uh? I much preferred NX instead of VNC because I didn't have to define the resolution when starting the server, plus it felt faster
petepete 7y ago
I've not seen anyone using VNC or remote Xorg for years. Is it really that important these days?
- jolmg 7y ago
  The bar for being important enough to not discard when it works and is the only solution to particular problems is not very high. I know of no other method to forward individual programs GUIs to other machines. Abandoning X is abandoning a power we have. You're right that it may not be used as much. Last time I used it was to debug why selenium tests running in chrome were failing in a server with a virtual display (Xvfb) when the tests would work in any developer's machine. I forwarded chrome's GUI from a docker container in a server in another room via my development machine. Its window was neatly tiled next to my other windows in my tiled window manager. You wouldn't be able to tell it wasn't running locally. I don't have to mess around with a desktop inside a desktop. Such neatness in UX is a comfort I'd like to keep. I'm all for making a new, more efficient display server, but please don't take powers away.
  - bitwize 7y ago
    > Abandoning X is abandoning a power we have. A power that literally no one uses. Well, no one that matters anyway. For values of "matter" equivalent to "uses a modern desktop". Whatever the case, modern development heavily favors coding for the common case, not supporting a flexible framework that can accommodate fringe cases. And in 2019, your use case is fringe.
    - jolmg 7y ago
      > A power that literally no one uses. I just told how I used it. > Well, no one that matters anyway. I don't matter? That's kind of rude. > Whatever the case, modern development heavily favors coding for the common case, not supporting a flexible framework that can accommodate fringe cases. And in 2019, your use case is fringe. Are you going to say that accessibility features should also be discarded? Being deaf or blind are not the common case.
temac 7y ago
I use ssh -X all the time.
- cat199 7y ago
  nonono, you're simply not getting it. I don't use it for reason X, therefore I can project this reasoning onto those that disagree, and dismiss them by calling them outdated. So, obviously your use case is irrelevant.
mindcrime 7y ago
I use it, so I could care less about your "it hands down lost to vnc/nx and rdp" assessment. And until Wayland has a mechanism that has the flexibility of X remoting, it is a strictly inferior technology - for my purposes. That doesn't mean that I may not be forced to adopt it due to market forces, but let's not pretend that this isn't a glaring hole in Wayland for many people.
- cat199 7y ago
  not to mention that 'poor adoptation' is much more likely driven by 'isolated single user on ubuntu laptop that doesn't know this exists' usecase dominating in sheer numbers over 'network of unix workstations operated by group of knowledgable users' than 'application X is slightly slow over the network, boo'
- BenjiWiebe 7y ago
  couldn't care less.
  - mindcrime 7y ago
    They mean the same thing. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Dictionary#dobs=could%20care%20less https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Diction...
JohnFen 7y ago
> it hands down lost to vnc/nx and rdp. Those solutions don't do what X remote desktop does, though. Namely, those let you share a desktop rather than providing independent remote desktops.
- altmind 7y ago
  to my knowledge, to supply multiple X remote desktops, you need to SPAWN multiple X desktops. and thats no a proper way to scale its number - they all are independent and not sharing common resources(incl. incoming ports)
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    I think how X works with this (and a lot of other stuff) can be very fairly criticized. Despite the implementation drawbacks, though, I use this ability heavily and in practice it gives me no trouble. Plus, I'm unaware of any other solution to this use case. It doesn't scale well if you're talking about dozens of simultaneous desktops, yes, but I rarely have more than three at a time. It's fine for that.
erik_seaberg 7y ago
DRI/DRM makes the assumption that your GPU is plugged in the one and only machine hosting all your apps. This wasn't that crazy in 1998, but today the GPU is under my desk while myriad app hosts are racked in datacenters (where a GPU might be an expensive addon, but probably doesn't exist) and good remoting is so neglected that the industry is using web browsers as display servers to fill the gap.
- floatboth 7y ago
  No, web browsers are used as an application platform, not a display server. Especially with SPAs ("thick" clients).

0x8BADF00D 7y ago

Yeah, VNC is just way better. Even running a local Docker container and using X11 forwarding is extremely slow.

jolmg 7y ago
It depends on how you define better. VNC may be faster, but it's just because X carries a lot of historical cruft, I believe. Usability-wise, X is more flexible. I can move individual windows between computers in X. I can't do that with VNC. I wouldn't mind doing the jump to Wayland if it were as flexible as X, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Correct me if I'm wrong.
- altmind 7y ago
  what's the point of running program locally, to be rendered locally, sending the primitives to Xorg server to be displayed somewhere else? is it using Xorg as a network proxy?
  - josteink 7y ago
    I think you got it kinda backwards, but due to confusing naming you wouldn’t be the first. It’s more like I’m logging into a remote server (using stuff like SSH), starting applications there and getting the GUI up on my local desktop, like any other local window/app, due to X-forwarding (back to my Xorg server). It’s not perfect, but it sure is a lot more “natural” and integrated into your desktop than VNC or RDP. I hope we can keep something similar with Wayland (using maybe XWayland or other compatibility kludges). I think it’s pretty nice.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
      RDP has had remote app for a long time now, which is essentially the same thing: run program on remote machine, forward its window to local.
      - mindcrime 7y ago
        Interesting, I've never heard of that facility before. I guess it wasn't promoted very heavily? Or maybe it's just because RDP comes from the MS world and I try very hard to avoid Windows and anything Windows-centric unless forced to. Anyway, thanks for sharing that. I'll look into it. Here's some info on RemoteApp for anybody else who's interested. https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/Enterprise-Mobility-Security/Introducing-RemoteApp-and-Desktop-Connections/ba-p/246803 https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/Enterprise-Mobility-S... https://social.technet.microsoft.com/wiki/contents/articles/2345.publish-a-remoteapp-application-on-remote-desktop-service.aspx https://social.technet.microsoft.com/wiki/contents/articles/...
        magicalhippo 7y ago
        > Or maybe it's just because RDP comes from the MS world and I try very hard to avoid Windows and anything Windows-centric unless forced to. It'll be due to that. For the most part it works really well, though still not flawless after all these years.
        josteink 7y ago
        Thanks for the links! Reading those though, I’m kind of underwhelmed. You have to have a dedicated Windows Terminal Server installation (which I’m sure has expensive and complicated licensing), on that you have to “publish apps” (which seems like a process in itself), on the client you need to subscribe to feeds. And after about 100 such individual steps... magic. With X11 I just forward a socket, launch a normal program normally, and everything just works. That’s just so much simpler, so much easier to work with and easier to understand. I can do it casually, on demand, when I need it. No preparation needed. That Windows thing... looks expensive and something you which takes planning.
      - 7y ago
  - baq 7y ago
    in the usual case you ssh to a big fat box (the server) and run X clients; the X server is running on your ssh client box.
- DonHopkins 7y ago
  It's not "historical cruft" that makes it slow. It's the fundamental architecture of X-Windows that makes it slow. Computers these days are network bound, not CPU or memory bound. It's not sluggish because it's executing too much code or running out of memory or too complicated. It's sluggish because it's making the wrong decisions to do the wrong things at the wrong times in the wrong places.
- m463 7y ago
  I run proxmox on one system to run a few VMs. I view the vm console displays remotely in the browser using novnc. I thought it was pretty cool the first time I used it.
renox 7y ago
Uh? I much preferred NX instead of VNC because I didn't have to define the resolution when starting the server, plus it felt faster

petepete 7y ago

I've not seen anyone using VNC or remote Xorg for years. Is it really that important these days?

jolmg 7y ago
The bar for being important enough to not discard when it works and is the only solution to particular problems is not very high. I know of no other method to forward individual programs GUIs to other machines. Abandoning X is abandoning a power we have. You're right that it may not be used as much. Last time I used it was to debug why selenium tests running in chrome were failing in a server with a virtual display (Xvfb) when the tests would work in any developer's machine. I forwarded chrome's GUI from a docker container in a server in another room via my development machine. Its window was neatly tiled next to my other windows in my tiled window manager. You wouldn't be able to tell it wasn't running locally. I don't have to mess around with a desktop inside a desktop. Such neatness in UX is a comfort I'd like to keep. I'm all for making a new, more efficient display server, but please don't take powers away.
- bitwize 7y ago
  > Abandoning X is abandoning a power we have. A power that literally no one uses. Well, no one that matters anyway. For values of "matter" equivalent to "uses a modern desktop". Whatever the case, modern development heavily favors coding for the common case, not supporting a flexible framework that can accommodate fringe cases. And in 2019, your use case is fringe.
  - jolmg 7y ago
    > A power that literally no one uses. I just told how I used it. > Well, no one that matters anyway. I don't matter? That's kind of rude. > Whatever the case, modern development heavily favors coding for the common case, not supporting a flexible framework that can accommodate fringe cases. And in 2019, your use case is fringe. Are you going to say that accessibility features should also be discarded? Being deaf or blind are not the common case.

temac 7y ago

I use ssh -X all the time.

cat199 7y ago
nonono, you're simply not getting it. I don't use it for reason X, therefore I can project this reasoning onto those that disagree, and dismiss them by calling them outdated. So, obviously your use case is irrelevant.

mindcrime 7y ago

I use it, so I could care less about your "it hands down lost to vnc/nx and rdp" assessment. And until Wayland has a mechanism that has the flexibility of X remoting, it is a strictly inferior technology - for my purposes. That doesn't mean that I may not be forced to adopt it due to market forces, but let's not pretend that this isn't a glaring hole in Wayland for many people.

cat199 7y ago
not to mention that 'poor adoptation' is much more likely driven by 'isolated single user on ubuntu laptop that doesn't know this exists' usecase dominating in sheer numbers over 'network of unix workstations operated by group of knowledgable users' than 'application X is slightly slow over the network, boo'
BenjiWiebe 7y ago
couldn't care less.
- mindcrime 7y ago
  They mean the same thing. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Dictionary#dobs=could%20care%20less https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Diction...

JohnFen 7y ago

> it hands down lost to vnc/nx and rdp. Those solutions don't do what X remote desktop does, though. Namely, those let you share a desktop rather than providing independent remote desktops.

altmind 7y ago
to my knowledge, to supply multiple X remote desktops, you need to SPAWN multiple X desktops. and thats no a proper way to scale its number - they all are independent and not sharing common resources(incl. incoming ports)
- JohnFen 7y ago
  I think how X works with this (and a lot of other stuff) can be very fairly criticized. Despite the implementation drawbacks, though, I use this ability heavily and in practice it gives me no trouble. Plus, I'm unaware of any other solution to this use case. It doesn't scale well if you're talking about dozens of simultaneous desktops, yes, but I rarely have more than three at a time. It's fine for that.

erik_seaberg 7y ago

DRI/DRM makes the assumption that your GPU is plugged in the one and only machine hosting all your apps. This wasn't that crazy in 1998, but today the GPU is under my desk while myriad app hosts are racked in datacenters (where a GPU might be an expensive addon, but probably doesn't exist) and good remoting is so neglected that the industry is using web browsers as display servers to fill the gap.

floatboth 7y ago
No, web browsers are used as an application platform, not a display server. Especially with SPAs ("thick" clients).