> This is a major reason the X-Windows protocol is so big and complicated X was trying to, in a sense, remote hardware acceleration. Wayland doesn't bother at

> This is a major reason the X-Windows protocol is so big and complicated X was trying to, in a sense, remote hardware acceleration. Wayland doesn't bother at all, clients render their windows locally and share (or send) a pre-rendered graphic. But if you use across the network an older X app, such as one that uses server-side fonts, etc, the experience is often much smoother, IME, as compared to the Wayland-universe alternatives.[1] Once upon a time even web browsers, like ancient versions of Netscape, were shockingly responsive over the network, even with mixed text and graphics; almost indistinguishable from local (and this at a time when X11 on a 486 was a smoother experience than Windows). The popular toolkits now render the window on the client even when using X, so those capabilities are largely unused today. [1] In that case, the composition and rendering of all the widgets, text, and images within a window is truly local, i.e. on your local X server.