31–40 of 131 posts
Wanda was a research operating system developed by Cambridge University. X was much the same, but developed at MIT.
I'm amazed X has lasted as long as it has.
Its kind of odd that remote access has been shoved to the side in this age of cloudiness and always connectedness. One would think that there existed better methods to remote access then just copying the image buffer and compress it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it impossible to evolve X11 to a satisfactory state?
Quartz architect Mike Paquette: Why Apple didn't use X for the window system (2003) http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=75257&cid=673... In retrospect, Xorg developers like Daniel Stone actually implemented most of the hacks in that list and have come to regret it.
One key feature of X that Wayland refuses to implement is the concept of remote access. Everything is intended to be local only. For those "strange" users out there who want remote access, the developers replies has so far been to use VNC. Its kind of odd that remote access has been shoved to the side in this age of cloudiness and always connectedness. One would think that there existed better methods to remote acces…
One key feature of X that Wayland refuses to implement is the concept of remote access. Everything is intended to be local only. For those "strange" users out there who want remote access, the developers replies has so far been to use VNC. Its kind of odd that remote access has been shoved to the side in this age of cloudiness and always connectedness. One would think that there existed better methods to remote acces…
One key feature of X that Wayland refuses to implement is the concept of remote access. Everything is intended to be local only. For those "strange" users out there who want remote access, the developers replies has so far been to use VNC. Its kind of odd that remote access has been shoved to the side in this age of cloudiness and always connectedness. One would think that there existed better methods to remote acces…
One key feature of X that Wayland refuses to implement is the concept of remote access. Everything is intended to be local only. For those "strange" users out there who want remote access, the developers replies has so far been to use VNC. Its kind of odd that remote access has been shoved to the side in this age of cloudiness and always connectedness. One would think that there existed better methods to remote acces…
X client -> (network) -> X server
Wayland "client" -> wayland intermediary "server" -> (network) -> wayland intermediary "client" - wayland server
I get the feeling that the pushback (not necessarily yours, but in general) might be rooted in the visual interface where an X server will manage and composite remote applications as if they were local but vnc and rdp (in most use cases) offer a window to the remote system. As I understand it, the former presentation style isn't precluded by wayland's approach.
Wayland's design for a client and server on the same machine doesn't do much more than pushing a buffer full of painted bytes to the server. So anything fancier than that isn't something they refuse to implement for just a network connection, they don't do it at all.
The part that really sums things up for me was: "XI) “But Eric, if X11 is so terrible why not just make X12 rather than a whole new protocol?” They did, technically anyway: http://www.x.org/wiki/Development/X12 One big problem with keeping it under the “X” umbrella: Anyone who cares about X would have a say in a future version of it. By calling it “Wayland” they avoid that issue. No one cares. Its an unrelated projec…
OTOH, if you make a minor change, but give the result a whole new name (Java vs C++, C# vs Java), people will think the result is meaningfully different and take it as a sign of major progress.
One key feature of X that Wayland refuses to implement is the concept of remote access. Everything is intended to be local only. For those "strange" users out there who want remote access, the developers replies has so far been to use VNC. Its kind of odd that remote access has been shoved to the side in this age of cloudiness and always connectedness. One would think that there existed better methods to remote acces…
As someone who has never used X's remote access, what are its benefits over VNC?
Some more facts about Wayland and client-side window decorations, quoted from here: http://blog.martin-graesslin.com/blog/2013/02/client-side-wi... - Nothing in Wayland requires them - QtWayland allows Clients to turn them off - KWin as a Wayland compositor will use server side decorations
All I want to know what happens if I kill -STOP any client. Doing this under X while clients had various grabs caused problems. Does Wayland fix this?