3 ms·

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

by 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

by divtxt 16y ago

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