08-20-2008, 07:38 AM
|
 Re: Obsoleteness of X concept
On Aug 18, 6:50*pm, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> Temoto writes:
>
> > Second, we-use-network. Very fine that i don't need to provide an IP
> > stack, firewall to see movie and browser. It can be done through
> > sockets and is configured such way by default. Very good. But why
> > anyway? Why should it be possible to run X server on some other
> > machine than mine? Anyone is really using it? Isn't it like dead
> > concept along with mainframes? I have laptop with such an good graphic
> > card, it can really draw graphic so well. Dedicated X drawing server
> > is really out of business here. I have a strong opinion that this is a
> > common situation. I believe it could be like branch of Xorg or config
> > option that runs faster because it really relies only on local
> > hardware.
>
> > Why X should use network subsystem? Please, comment here.
>
> This is actually incredibly useful, and I use it every day -- being
> able to run gnumeric on my laptop, with the display appearing on my
> desktop, makes life much, much easier for me. *I think this is
> definitely one of the differences between somebody who grew up on
> Windows and somebody who grew up on Unix: *having to actually be
> physically at a computer to work with it seems horribly limiting to an
> old Unix person, while working any other way seems useless to an old
> Windows person.
There is crossplatform VNC. I've heard that its protocol is much more
network friendly than one of X.
Anyway, you're limited to screen and keyboard/mouse. There is no
remote sound and printers in X. Those are equally part of user
interface along with screen and keyboard.
> > Third, how to think different. There is a framebuffer kernel video
> > driver. What is wrong with it for using it instead of X? I understand
> > that all apps relay on X. It's a matter of lots code changes, i
> > understand all. Just theoretically, is there something wrong? Maybe
> > some performance issues? Like limiting kernel time execution or
> > something... i believe this could have relatively simple solution.
>
> Does the framebuffer driver support acceleration?
No, but i'm trying to be positive.
Is there anything stopping it to support? Maybe it should stay
lightweight nice console option.
Is there anything stopping writing another "heavy framebuffer",
supporting modern videocards features? I guess no.
 |