4 ms·
> I don't think any future graphics system, be it Wayland or something else, will support it Which is another reason xorg isn't going to disappear, since large
by bandrami 3y ago
> I don't think any future graphics system, be it Wayland or something else, will support it
Which is another reason xorg isn't going to disappear, since large labs absolutely need computer A to display a resource-intensive program running on more-powerful computer B
- williamdclt 3y agonot really a convincing reason, the interface doesn't have to be rendered by the same process that's running the intensive computation
- fragmede 3y ago> doesn't have to be unless you're volunteering to write the code to make it not, that's how it is
- tsimionescu 3y agoThe X protocol is only really necessary for the opposite case - for allowing powerful computer A to render the display of a weak computer B. If B is powerful, it can render the display itself and send the rendered images, as I was mentioning earlier.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- bandrami 3y agoYeah, no, you have it backwards. The idea was I sign in to my underpowered workstation and run spice (or whatever) on the more powerful server. I would like the outputs to display on my weak computer. That's the whole point of this, and labs still use it religiously.
- tsimionescu 3y agoSure, but RDP and VNC can do that just fine, and don't need any special buy-in from the GUI toolkit to do so. The only technical advantage of doing it the X Server way is if the machine running the program doesn't have the resources/hardware to render. I know it's not a usual case - which is why I'm saying this doesn't need to be built into the window system at all.
- bandrami 3y agoNo, they don't! They're not even remotely comparable. Have you actually tried a setup like this?