Re: how to get rid of XFree in the longterm (just a thought) - Xwindows

This is a discussion on Re: how to get rid of XFree in the longterm (just a thought) - Xwindows ; :: There are more reasons one might want to start remote apps :: than just GUI apps. : tom : What other reasons? I use ssh to start remote applications, but this : hasn't anything to do with this 'system', ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 38 of 38

Thread: Re: how to get rid of XFree in the longterm (just a thought)

  1. Re: how to get rid of XFree in the longterm (just a thought)

    :: There are more reasons one might want to start remote apps
    :: than just GUI apps.

    : tom
    : What other reasons? I use ssh to start remote applications, but this
    : hasn't anything to do with this 'system', it only handles GUI apps.

    That's my point. Why have a "GUI app starter" and a "tty app starter"
    and a "pipe app starter" and a "non-file-oriented app starter", and a
    "surrogate filesystem app starter" (for distributing builds), and so on
    and so on and so on? Not "have for this GUI system", it only needs the
    one; but "be forced to create all these because each system refuses to
    use a single remote launching service". That's what separation of
    concerns and modularity is all about.


    Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

  2. Re: how to get rid of XFree in the longterm (just a thought)

    Wayne Throop wrote:
    > :: There are more reasons one might want to start remote apps
    > :: than just GUI apps.
    >
    > : tom
    > : What other reasons? I use ssh to start remote applications, but this
    > : hasn't anything to do with this 'system', it only handles GUI apps.
    >
    > That's my point. Why have a "GUI app starter" and a "tty app starter"
    > and a "pipe app starter" and a "non-file-oriented app starter", and a
    > "surrogate filesystem app starter" (for distributing builds), and so on
    > and so on and so on?


    I see now...
    The 'system' was just an idea of me, how I think it could be designed..
    It's far from being perfect, there surely are things which are stupid or
    useless from your point of view (and maybe from other's, too).. and I'm
    glad to hear someone who corrects me or explains me why it can't be like
    I thought.. that's ok.. I'm still learning..

    > Not "have for this GUI system", it only needs the
    > one; but "be forced to create all these because each system refuses to
    > use a single remote launching service". That's what separation of
    > concerns and modularity is all about.


    The only 'remote launching service' I know is the terminal/xterm or ssh.
    Are there any other 'remote launching services'?
    I think for a normal user it's easier to have a 'app server browser',
    there pick up a server and then launch an app instead of connecting to
    each computer using ssh and launch the app from there. The GUI launcher
    is only there for comfort, not as a replacement of ssh. Of cource the
    user still can use ssh to launch his favourite applications.
    If the user uses only one machine, he can omit starting the GUI starter
    and launch all applications using a terminal.

    I've extended my webpage (system.html) and added some more lines to it..
    There also is a correction of the definition of the app server - the GUI
    launcher.


    --
    wereHamster a.k.a. Tom Carnecky Emmen, Switzerland

    (GC 3.1) GIT d+ s+: a--- C++ UL++ P L++ E- W++ N++ !o !K w ?O ?M
    ?V PS PE ?Y PGP t ?5 X R- tv b+ ?DI D+ G++ e-- h! !r !y+

  3. Re: how to get rid of XFree in the longterm (just a thought)

    : tom
    : The only 'remote launching service' I know is the terminal/xterm or
    : ssh. Are there any other 'remote launching services'?

    Oh heavens me, there are zillions, for pretty much the reasons I noted
    (that is, that everybody rolls their own as they need one). Historically
    you could count telnet and rsh; but that lineage is mostly combined
    in ssh now. But then there are things ranging from he arguable
    role of RPC servers as very specialized remote process launchers,
    through CGI within http servers, all the way to distcc and commercial
    versions of the analogous thing, eg, clearcase.


    Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

  4. Re: how to get rid of XFree in the longterm (just a thought)

    Wayne Throop wrote:
    > : tom
    > : The only 'remote launching service' I know is the terminal/xterm or
    > : ssh. Are there any other 'remote launching services'?
    >
    > Oh heavens me, there are zillions, for pretty much the reasons I noted
    > (that is, that everybody rolls their own as they need one). Historically
    > you could count telnet and rsh; but that lineage is mostly combined
    > in ssh now. But then there are things ranging from he arguable
    > role of RPC servers as very specialized remote process launchers,
    > through CGI within http servers, all the way to distcc and commercial
    > versions of the analogous thing, eg, clearcase.


    Just to clarify that I've understood you right: You state that there
    already are 'zillions' of remote launchers and that I'm creating yet
    another one.
    Do you mean that there should be one 'remote launching service' and that
    all should use it?

    If there already are 'zillions', why not one more?

    You wrote: "be forced to create all these [remote launchers] because
    each system refuses to use a single remote launching service".
    Show me the 'single remote launching service'. If I could I would use it
    or integrate it into the system, but there is no 'single remote
    launching service'. As you said, everybody creates his own remote launcher.



    --
    wereHamster a.k.a. Tom Carnecky Emmen, Switzerland

    (GC 3.1) GIT d+ s+: a--- C++ UL++ P L++ E- W++ N++ !o !K w ?O ?M
    ?V PS PE ?Y PGP t ?5 X R- tv b+ ?DI D+ G++ e-- h! !r !y+

  5. Re: how to get rid of XFree in the longterm (just a thought)

    In article <403f7b59$0$41292$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com>,
    Grant Edwards writes:
    [...]
    > IMHO, with todays processors (both central and video), X11 is
    > so fast that worrying about speeding it up is a waste of effort.
    >
    > Unless you're doing gaming or 3D animation stuff, I suppose.
    >
    > For us grunts on the ground writing code, writing documents,
    > and doing e-mail, worrying about X11 speedup is purely an
    > academic exercise.


    Say that again when "xlsfonts -lll" stops being a denial of service attack.


    --
    mailto:rlhamil@smart.net http://www.smart.net/~rlhamil

  6. Re: how to get rid of XFree in the longterm (just a thought)

    On 2004-02-27, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:

    >> For us grunts on the ground writing code, writing documents,
    >> and doing e-mail, worrying about X11 speedup is purely an
    >> academic exercise.

    >
    > Say that again when "xlsfonts -lll" stops being a denial of service attack.


    I don't get it.

    I did the command above, and it wasn't any more of a DOS attack
    than any other command that generates copious amounts of text
    output.

    All other processes still ran fine, and it stopped when I sent
    it a SIGINT.

    --
    Grant Edwards grante Yow! for ARTIFICIAL
    at FLAVORING!!
    visi.com

  7. Re: how to get rid of XFree in the longterm (just a thought)

    : tom
    : Do you mean that there should be one 'remote launching service' and
    : that all should use it?

    It seems like a good goal to adopt; rather than to create
    Yet Another Special Purpose tool.

    : If there already are 'zillions', why not one more?

    "Everybody's doing it, so why shouldn't I?"
    "Everybody shoplifts; if I didn't somebody else would."
    "It's only one little burger wrapper; how can it hurt to
    throw it on the beach?"

    If everybody were jumping off a cliff...


    Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

  8. Re: how to get rid of XFree in the longterm (just a thought)

    Grant Edwards writes:

    >> Say that again when "xlsfonts -lll" stops being a denial of service attack.

    >
    > I did the command above, and it wasn't any more of a DOS attack
    > than any other command that generates copious amounts of text
    > output.
    >
    > All other processes still ran fine, and it stopped when I sent
    > it a SIGINT.


    Guess it's time to say it again, then.

  9. Re: how to get rid of XFree in the longterm (just a thought)

    : tom
    : You wrote: "be forced to create all these [remote launchers] because
    : each system refuses to use a single remote launching service". Show
    : me the 'single remote launching service'. If I could I would use it
    : or integrate it into the system, but there is no 'single remote
    : launching service'. As you said, everybody creates his own remote
    : launcher.

    You could use ssh. Or you could use the same strategy as, say, rsync does.


    Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

  10. Re: how to get rid of XFree in the longterm (just a thought)

    On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 21:05:32 -0000,
    Richard L. Hamilton , in
    <103vc8sn6tp6h51@corp.supernews.com> wrote:

    >+ Say that again when "xlsfonts -lll" stops being a denial of service attack.


    It never got above a load average of 2 on a P4 @ 2.66GHz. And I've
    seen much, much higher.

    James
    --
    Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
    I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
    isn't looking good, either.
    I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.

  11. Re: how to get rid of XFree in the longterm (just a thought)

    In article <87oerkp4zj.fsf@dps11.gnuyork.org>,
    Billy O'Connor writes:
    > Grant Edwards writes:
    >
    >>> Say that again when "xlsfonts -lll" stops being a denial of service attack.

    >>
    >> I did the command above, and it wasn't any more of a DOS attack
    >> than any other command that generates copious amounts of text
    >> output.
    >>
    >> All other processes still ran fine, and it stopped when I sent
    >> it a SIGINT.

    >
    > Guess it's time to say it again, then.


    Ok, I'll have to admit that (running the latest Solaris 9 Xsun),
    it's a lot better than it used to be a few years ago - instead of
    freezing all other clients totally for the minutes it would take to
    run, it just makes them all a bit slower and less smooth-running.
    I wonder when that changed?

    (I still think a multi-threaded server would be less subject to having
    any one client impact the performance of all the others.)


    --
    mailto:rlhamil@smart.net http://www.smart.net/~rlhamil

  12. Re: how to get rid of XFree in the longterm (just a thought)

    The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    > In comp.windows.x, Grant Edwards
    >
    > wrote
    > on 27 Feb 2004 05:13:03 GMT
    > <403ed1df$0$41283$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com>:
    >
    >>In article , The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>>And how do you propose eliminating such a protocol? The client
    >>>>can't just 'wish' something onto the display. The client have
    >>>>to prepare the request in a pre-defined format and submit it in
    >>>>a pre-defined manner. The latter is a protocol, isnt' it?
    >>>
    >>>I'll admit to wondering about this protocol myself. The protocol
    >>>inherently serializes everything,

    >>
    >>How so?
    >>
    >>I see no reason why the protocol would prevent you from writing
    >>a multi-threaded server.

    >
    >
    > Hm...you may be right; I wasn't thinking of multiple clients for
    > some bizarre reason.


    Jsut gettign a bit confused here, I never use more than one client with X, but
    multiple servers... have I missed something, how do you use more than one
    client at the same time? Without using Xforward over ssh or any other "trick".


    //Aho

  13. Re: how to get rid of XFree in the longterm (just a thought)

    On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 13:33:22 +0100, J.O. Aho wrote:
    > Jsut gettign a bit confused here, I never use more than one client
    > with X, but multiple servers... have I missed something


    You're probably confused about the terminology. The X server is the
    program that provides graphical (and other) I/O services to the X
    clients, or the actual applications.

    Followups set.

    --
    Mikko Rauhala - mjr@iki.fi -
    Transhumanist - WTA member -
    Singularitarian - SIAI supporter -


  14. Re: how to get rid of XFree in the longterm (just a thought)

    Grant Edwards wrote:

    > And how do you propose eliminating such a protocol? The client
    > can't just 'wish' something onto the display. The client have


    Besides, that would be cheating. You can't eliminate "RPC" protocols in
    favour of "ESP" protocols, and say you don't have a protocol anymore ;-)


  15. Re: how to get rid of XFree in the longterm (just a thought)

    : "J.O. Aho"
    : Jsut gettign a bit confused here, I never use more than one client
    : with X, but multiple servers... have I missed something, how do you
    : use more than one client at the same time? Without using Xforward
    : over ssh or any other "trick".

    Examples of X servers: /usr/X11R6/bin/XFree86, Xsun, Xvnc, etc etc.
    Examples of X clients: xterm, xemacs, xcalc, mozilla, etc etc.

    It is normal to use one server and multiple clients.
    In fact, it's a bit difficult to do anything else, without a KVM
    switch in either software or hardware for use in parallel, or
    VNC for use in series. Or some multiheaded setups.

    The key is, what is being served? Answer: access to
    the keyboard, mouse, and display. Your key/mose clicks go to the
    server, and clients like xterm or mozilla request to be informed
    of them by the server, and direct the server to draw on the display.

    As the X man page says:

    DESCRIPTION
    X Window System servers run on computers with bitmap dis-
    plays. The server distributes user input to and accepts
    output requests from various client programs through a
    variety of different interprocess communication channels.
    Although the most common case is for the client programs
    to be running on the same machine as the server, clients
    can be run transparently from other machines (including
    machines with different architectures and operating sys-
    tems) as well.



    Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

  16. Re: how to get rid of XFree in the longterm (just a thought)

    In comp.windows.x, Richard L. Hamilton

    wrote
    on Fri, 27 Feb 2004 21:05:32 -0000
    <103vc8sn6tp6h51@corp.supernews.com>:
    > In article <403f7b59$0$41292$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com>,
    > Grant Edwards writes:
    > [...]
    >> IMHO, with todays processors (both central and video), X11 is
    >> so fast that worrying about speeding it up is a waste of effort.
    >>
    >> Unless you're doing gaming or 3D animation stuff, I suppose.
    >>
    >> For us grunts on the ground writing code, writing documents,
    >> and doing e-mail, worrying about X11 speedup is purely an
    >> academic exercise.

    >
    > Say that again when "xlsfonts -lll" stops being a denial of service attack.
    >


    Is it a DOS because of it reading the data from the X server
    (or perhaps xfs/xfstt?) or is it a DOS because it generates
    hundreds of megabytes of character metrics onto standard
    output, which is usually an X terminal of some sort?

    Of course, if one really wants to get cute, try the following:

    [1] Get Cygwin/XFree86 installed onto a Win2k box.
    [2] Open the display on a box running X using
    xhost +windowsbox
    [3] DISPLAY=xserver:0 xlsfonts -lll

    and watch the Win2k system freeze up as it tries to deal with
    the text output... :-) (Nothing to do with xlsfonts; a
    simple Perl output loop (perl -e 'while(1) { print "Hello!\n"; }')
    would work equally well. At least xlsfonts -lll will eventually
    terminate.)

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    It's still legal to go .sigless.

  17. Re: how to get rid of XFree in the longterm (just a thought)

    Wayne Throop wrote:
    > : "J.O. Aho"
    > : Jsut gettign a bit confused here, I never use more than one client
    > : with X, but multiple servers... have I missed something, how do you
    > : use more than one client at the same time? Without using Xforward
    > : over ssh or any other "trick".
    >
    > Examples of X servers: /usr/X11R6/bin/XFree86, Xsun, Xvnc, etc etc.
    > Examples of X clients: xterm, xemacs, xcalc, mozilla, etc etc.
    >
    > It is normal to use one server and multiple clients.
    > In fact, it's a bit difficult to do anything else, without a KVM
    > switch in either software or hardware for use in parallel, or
    > VNC for use in series. Or some multiheaded setups.


    I was more on the level of X, connections between the client X and server X,
    must have managed to get quite a lot lost in the discussion.



    //Aho

  18. Re: how to get rid of XFree in the longterm (just a thought)

    I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
    > Christopher Browne wrote:


    > > Well, there's _always_ a bottleneck, _somewhere_, to limit
    > > performance in any kind of system.


    Unless the system is _perfectly_ tuned.

    > Well, of course. But if you don't notice the bottleneck, is it a
    > bottleneck?


    If you don't notice the bottleneck, it is because you _are_ the
    bottleneck. :-)

    Seriously it is important to be aware that although we may call our X
    server a "system", what is perceived as the system to the user is much
    more than just the X server. It is also the local hardware, the
    network and the application servers. Altogether it is likely to be
    completely different from user to user, and any developer who is
    serious about the performance should at least test the effects of
    limiting each of the factors that can act as the bottleneck, to see
    what can be done to compensate and how necessary it is.

    Jacob
    --
    "It is very easy to get ridiculously confused about the
    tenses of time travel, but most things can be resolved
    by a sufficiently large ego."

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2