| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
The X Window System, past and futureThe X Window System, past and futurePosted Mar 28, 2003 1:10 UTC (Fri) by iabervon (subscriber, #722)In reply to: The X Window System, past and future by paulsheer Parent article: The X Window System, past and future Of course there are performance penalties resulting from network transparency. But you don't see them if you are doing productive things with a computer (i.e. not gaming). Or if you connect to :0.0, which uses a UNIX socket, not the network. X is sufficiently clever to *not* be network transparent if there happens not to be a network.
(Log in to post comments)
The X Window System, past and future Posted Mar 29, 2003 17:36 UTC (Sat) by ptr (guest, #5885) [Link] I think that slightly misses the point. The criticism of efficiency applies to the protocol whichserializes display updates into a data stream. This protocol is used no matter whether a remote network connection or a local unix socket is used. This protocol is claimed to be inefficient, because the supported drawing primitives are too low-level (as mentioned earlier in this thread). Another fundamental question is, if there are better approaches for inter process communication than serialization which scale up better in the case that the applications run on the same system. Of course, also security issues are of concern...
|
|
||||||||||||