4 ms·

It always felt wrong to me because the remote computer acted in response to your actions. You click on something and it responds. I'm sure there were valid tech

by dejb 17y ago

It always felt wrong to me because the remote computer acted in response to your actions. You click on something and it responds. I'm sure there were valid technical reasons for it but commercially it must have been disaster.

omail 17y ago
I'm not sure why they decided the display should be the server and the programs be the clients. It might be because the other way around is to have one client, the display, access many servers, the programs. That seems even less right to me. (On the other hand, that would make it easier to let a friend over the network look into one of your windows.) Commercially speaking, X11 was a great success. It is the de facto windowing system for UNIX and UNIX-like systems despite all of the horrors it brings.
- nailer 17y ago
  Being the defacto windowing system for a platform that has very little desktop market share isn't a great success.
  - omail 17y ago
    Being the defacto windowing system for the most popular operating system family is a great success. And if you believe Windows is the most popular OS family, then being the defacto windowing system for the second most popular OS family is still a great success.
    - nailer 17y ago
      Actually the defacto windowing system for desktop Unix is OS X's window manager, based on Quartz Compositor.
      - omail 17y ago
        I wasn't referring to desktop systems exclusively, but if I were then you'd have been right.
sp332 17y ago
You're thinking of it in terms of the application, not the display. The app was running on the app server, which connects to the X server as an X client.
- dejb 17y ago
  I'm thinking more in terms of the person sitting in front of the computer rather than than the app. They are the ultimate 'client' who is served by the computer in front of them. That computer (thin client) is the client of the application server and so on down the line to the database and whatever other services (servers) are called. I can't really see a solid line of differentiation between an 'X server' and a browser. Would you call the browser an HTML/Javascript server?
  - blasdel 17y ago
    No, because the browser initiates each connection.
    - nailer 17y ago
      Just as a user running an X server initiates the clients to display on it.
      - ars 17y ago
        Actually no. The remote app server initiates clients to run on it. So the remote one is the client, and the local one is the server.
        nailer 17y ago
        Actually no, you're confusing application serving (a term used in non X environments) with display serving (which X uses). X display servers (which we both agree are local) do not initiate clients to display on them, end users do this work - you can see this quite easily by initiating a client when you don't have an X display - the app will look for a $DISPLAY variable and attempt to connect to that display. The app is launched first by the user, and connects to the display server.

by dejb 17y ago

omail 17y ago

I'm not sure why they decided the display should be the server and the programs be the clients. It might be because the other way around is to have one client, the display, access many servers, the programs. That seems even less right to me. (On the other hand, that would make it easier to let a friend over the network look into one of your windows.) Commercially speaking, X11 was a great success. It is the de facto windowing system for UNIX and UNIX-like systems despite all of the horrors it brings.

nailer 17y ago
Being the defacto windowing system for a platform that has very little desktop market share isn't a great success.
- omail 17y ago
  Being the defacto windowing system for the most popular operating system family is a great success. And if you believe Windows is the most popular OS family, then being the defacto windowing system for the second most popular OS family is still a great success.
  - nailer 17y ago
    Actually the defacto windowing system for desktop Unix is OS X's window manager, based on Quartz Compositor.
    - omail 17y ago
      I wasn't referring to desktop systems exclusively, but if I were then you'd have been right.

sp332 17y ago

You're thinking of it in terms of the application, not the display. The app was running on the app server, which connects to the X server as an X client.

dejb 17y ago
I'm thinking more in terms of the person sitting in front of the computer rather than than the app. They are the ultimate 'client' who is served by the computer in front of them. That computer (thin client) is the client of the application server and so on down the line to the database and whatever other services (servers) are called. I can't really see a solid line of differentiation between an 'X server' and a browser. Would you call the browser an HTML/Javascript server?
- blasdel 17y ago
  No, because the browser initiates each connection.
  - nailer 17y ago
    Just as a user running an X server initiates the clients to display on it.
    - ars 17y ago
      Actually no. The remote app server initiates clients to run on it. So the remote one is the client, and the local one is the server.
      - nailer 17y ago
        Actually no, you're confusing application serving (a term used in non X environments) with display serving (which X uses). X display servers (which we both agree are local) do not initiate clients to display on them, end users do this work - you can see this quite easily by initiating a client when you don't have an X display - the app will look for a $DISPLAY variable and attempt to connect to that display. The app is launched first by the user, and connects to the display server.