5 ms·

This was posted before: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1872536 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1872536 I flamed a lot. NETWORK TRANSPARENCY IS IMPORT

by sedachv 16y ago

This was posted before: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1872536 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1872536 I flamed a lot. NETWORK TRANSPARENCY IS IMPORTANT. The effort put into Wayland would be much better put into getting NX standardized as the next generation of X protocol, and developing additional X extensions. David Täht has some good perspective on X11 network transparency: http://the-edge.blogspot.com/2007/10/x11-is-dead-long-live-x11.html http://the-edge.blogspot.com/2007/10/x11-is-dead-long-live-x...

divtxt 16y ago
I'm surprised how vehement X defenders are about network transparency. Like most people, all my 'desktop' apps are local - am I not allowed to have a protocol that sacrifices network transparency for local performance? (like most people, all my remote apps are web apps)
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  You're surprised because you have it backwards. X supporters don't like network transparency, people who like network transparency defend X.
- sedachv 16y ago
  Read the links I posted. X network transparency has no perceivable effect on local performance. What the Wayland people don't like is the server/window manager/applications split, and the current developments in the driver architecture of X.org. Those things are unrelated to network transparency. If you're happy giving up X and SSH and doing everything through the web browser, that's ok. Some people like television. I like to get work done. When the "cloud" (some machine in some datacenter in the USA) goes down, don't say Stallman didn't warn you: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/29/cloud.computing.richard.stallman http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/29/cloud.compu...
  - divtxt 16y ago
    - Performance is not the only consideration - local-only would remove a lot of design & implementation complexity. (similar to local pipe vs network socket etc) - As a dev/admin, I depend on SSH but not on X. - The "dangers of cloud" argument is not exactly helping the pitch for network transparency. :)
    - sedachv 16y ago
      "Performance is not the only consideration - local-only would remove a lot of design & implementation complexity. (similar to local pipe vs network socket etc)" Being network-transparent does not mean being complicated. See the Plan9 window systems: http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/4th_edition/papers/812/ http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/4th_edition/papers/812/ http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/3rd_edition/rio/ http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/3rd_edition/rio/
  - kelnos 16y ago
    Huh? Please. No one is asking you to give up SSH. Honestly I never use remote X. It's just too clunky and dependent on a perhaps-flaky network (oops, lost the network connection for a minute? crap, there goes the entire app). I just use command-line stuff over ssh for all my remote admin, inside a screen session if necessary. Never had a problem with this.
    - sedachv 16y ago
      "Honestly I never use remote X. It's just too clunky" Why not try to fix it? This isn't the fault of network transparency or even the X11 protocol, but the tools. "oops, lost the network connection for a minute? crap, there goes the entire app" How is that different from losing your SSH connection? There's a screen-like program for X that gives you persistent applications: http://code.google.com/p/partiwm/wiki/xpra http://code.google.com/p/partiwm/wiki/xpra
Symmetry 16y ago
As far as I can tell, there shouldn't be any problem using X as a Wayland Client to do your network transparency unless your remote window needs direct graphics acceleration. Its possible that in the long run some programs won't work with X, but I also expect Wayland to get network transparency in the long run. EDIT: After looking at the Wayland mailing list, it seems there are already people hard at work getting network transparency in. So we can probably expect it in the medium run rather than the long run.
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  The problem with that is X becomes a second class citizen, like cygwin on windows.
- rickard 16y ago
  Coming in late, but I guess the thread you refer to is "Finishing the network protocol" at http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/2011-March/thread.html#779 http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/2011-Mar... . After skimming through it, I'm not afraid for the network transparency any longer.
wmf 16y ago
Wayland can be network-transparent; this is so obvious that the developers didn't bother to explain it (oops). Remote clients will connect to a local proxy server that compresses the window updates (VNC-like) and sends them over the network to a proxy client that decompresses into the appropriate buffers. AFAIK none of this code has been written, but it's not impossible as some people fear. Now it may happen that no one cares enough about network transparency to bother to write the code, but I don't see that as Wayland's problem.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- ezy 16y ago
  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xpra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xpra as an existence proof. It's an implementation of exactly what you describe using X's existing compositing manager. It has some nice properties over using something like "xmove".
- praptak 16y ago
  Interesting quote by James Gosling (of NeWS fame, among others): "I think that a more viable solution in the long run would be to replace the X protocol with a very simple pixel copying protocol that uses the user-level rendering libraries in the application to render to a local image buffer, then copies the pixels over the net in something that looks vaguely like a video stream. There are a variety of compression hacks that make this surprisingly efficient – this is essentially what the SunRay product does. Some analysis has been done that shows that this uses essentially the same bandwidth as the X protocol, if done well." From "Window System Design: If I had it to do over again in 2002."
  - mansr 16y ago
    This may work fine on a dedicated gigabit network, which is where SunRay lives, but it does not work at all on a slow, possibly high-latency, link. To see for yourself, try running any gtk or qt app over an ADSL link or even a local wireless network, and enjoy the slide-show. Apps using server-side font rendering, on the other hand, work nicely under these circumstances.
theBobMcCormick 16y ago
Why? Yes VNC sucks, but MS Windows isn't inherently network transparent, yet remote desktop on Windows provides an absolutely awesome end user experience. It's fast - even over relatively slow connections, it's easy, it even includes sharing of clipboard, sound, drives, and peripherals. And you can easily disconnect/reconnect session. Everything about the user experience with Windows Remote Desktop is better than any X server implementation I've ever seen. What would be lost by implementing something similar to Windows Remote Desktop on top of Wayland?
- mansr 16y ago
  Why do it on wasteland^W Wayland and not on X?
  - theBobMcCormick 16y ago
    I'm assuming this answer from the Wayland FAQ is what you're looking for? http://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html#heading_toc_j_6 http://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html#heading_toc_j_6
- sedachv 16y ago
  Compare RD with http://www.nomachine.com/ http://www.nomachine.com/ (NX) on a 128kpbs link on another continent, and then you have your answer.
  - jodrellblank 16y ago
    All my comparisons have been "Control Panel -> System -> Remote Connections tab -> Enable remote desktop". Client built in to Windows. versus "Nomachine NX is a commercial product starting at $700+ but there's a limited 2 user free version, and also an admin console and a web package. Here's a 14 page PDF with install instructions and a link to the client install guide download location, along with the library version prerequisites..." Needless to say I use RDP, push install VNC and SSH constantly and have never installed NX or seen a server with it installed or used it. I have my answer.

by sedachv 16y ago

divtxt 16y ago

I'm surprised how vehement X defenders are about network transparency. Like most people, all my 'desktop' apps are local - am I not allowed to have a protocol that sacrifices network transparency for local performance? (like most people, all my remote apps are web apps)

burgerbrain 16y ago
You're surprised because you have it backwards. X supporters don't like network transparency, people who like network transparency defend X.
sedachv 16y ago
Read the links I posted. X network transparency has no perceivable effect on local performance. What the Wayland people don't like is the server/window manager/applications split, and the current developments in the driver architecture of X.org. Those things are unrelated to network transparency. If you're happy giving up X and SSH and doing everything through the web browser, that's ok. Some people like television. I like to get work done. When the "cloud" (some machine in some datacenter in the USA) goes down, don't say Stallman didn't warn you: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/29/cloud.computing.richard.stallman http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/29/cloud.compu...
- divtxt 16y ago
  - Performance is not the only consideration - local-only would remove a lot of design & implementation complexity. (similar to local pipe vs network socket etc) - As a dev/admin, I depend on SSH but not on X. - The "dangers of cloud" argument is not exactly helping the pitch for network transparency. :)
  - sedachv 16y ago
    "Performance is not the only consideration - local-only would remove a lot of design & implementation complexity. (similar to local pipe vs network socket etc)" Being network-transparent does not mean being complicated. See the Plan9 window systems: http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/4th_edition/papers/812/ http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/4th_edition/papers/812/ http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/3rd_edition/rio/ http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/3rd_edition/rio/
- kelnos 16y ago
  Huh? Please. No one is asking you to give up SSH. Honestly I never use remote X. It's just too clunky and dependent on a perhaps-flaky network (oops, lost the network connection for a minute? crap, there goes the entire app). I just use command-line stuff over ssh for all my remote admin, inside a screen session if necessary. Never had a problem with this.
  - sedachv 16y ago
    "Honestly I never use remote X. It's just too clunky" Why not try to fix it? This isn't the fault of network transparency or even the X11 protocol, but the tools. "oops, lost the network connection for a minute? crap, there goes the entire app" How is that different from losing your SSH connection? There's a screen-like program for X that gives you persistent applications: http://code.google.com/p/partiwm/wiki/xpra http://code.google.com/p/partiwm/wiki/xpra

Symmetry 16y ago

As far as I can tell, there shouldn't be any problem using X as a Wayland Client to do your network transparency unless your remote window needs direct graphics acceleration. Its possible that in the long run some programs won't work with X, but I also expect Wayland to get network transparency in the long run. EDIT: After looking at the Wayland mailing list, it seems there are already people hard at work getting network transparency in. So we can probably expect it in the medium run rather than the long run.

burgerbrain 16y ago
The problem with that is X becomes a second class citizen, like cygwin on windows.
rickard 16y ago
Coming in late, but I guess the thread you refer to is "Finishing the network protocol" at http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/2011-March/thread.html#779 http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/2011-Mar... . After skimming through it, I'm not afraid for the network transparency any longer.

wmf 16y ago

Wayland can be network-transparent; this is so obvious that the developers didn't bother to explain it (oops). Remote clients will connect to a local proxy server that compresses the window updates (VNC-like) and sends them over the network to a proxy client that decompresses into the appropriate buffers. AFAIK none of this code has been written, but it's not impossible as some people fear. Now it may happen that no one cares enough about network transparency to bother to write the code, but I don't see that as Wayland's problem.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
ezy 16y ago
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xpra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xpra as an existence proof. It's an implementation of exactly what you describe using X's existing compositing manager. It has some nice properties over using something like "xmove".
praptak 16y ago
Interesting quote by James Gosling (of NeWS fame, among others): "I think that a more viable solution in the long run would be to replace the X protocol with a very simple pixel copying protocol that uses the user-level rendering libraries in the application to render to a local image buffer, then copies the pixels over the net in something that looks vaguely like a video stream. There are a variety of compression hacks that make this surprisingly efficient – this is essentially what the SunRay product does. Some analysis has been done that shows that this uses essentially the same bandwidth as the X protocol, if done well." From "Window System Design: If I had it to do over again in 2002."
- mansr 16y ago
  This may work fine on a dedicated gigabit network, which is where SunRay lives, but it does not work at all on a slow, possibly high-latency, link. To see for yourself, try running any gtk or qt app over an ADSL link or even a local wireless network, and enjoy the slide-show. Apps using server-side font rendering, on the other hand, work nicely under these circumstances.

theBobMcCormick 16y ago

Why? Yes VNC sucks, but MS Windows isn't inherently network transparent, yet remote desktop on Windows provides an absolutely awesome end user experience. It's fast - even over relatively slow connections, it's easy, it even includes sharing of clipboard, sound, drives, and peripherals. And you can easily disconnect/reconnect session. Everything about the user experience with Windows Remote Desktop is better than any X server implementation I've ever seen. What would be lost by implementing something similar to Windows Remote Desktop on top of Wayland?

mansr 16y ago
Why do it on wasteland^W Wayland and not on X?
- theBobMcCormick 16y ago
  I'm assuming this answer from the Wayland FAQ is what you're looking for? http://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html#heading_toc_j_6 http://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html#heading_toc_j_6
sedachv 16y ago
Compare RD with http://www.nomachine.com/ http://www.nomachine.com/ (NX) on a 128kpbs link on another continent, and then you have your answer.
- jodrellblank 16y ago
  All my comparisons have been "Control Panel -> System -> Remote Connections tab -> Enable remote desktop". Client built in to Windows. versus "Nomachine NX is a commercial product starting at $700+ but there's a limited 2 user free version, and also an admin console and a web package. Here's a 14 page PDF with install instructions and a link to the client install guide download location, along with the library version prerequisites..." Needless to say I use RDP, push install VNC and SSH constantly and have never installed NX or seen a server with it installed or used it. I have my answer.