|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Shuttleworth: Unity on Wayland

Shuttleworth: Unity on Wayland

Posted Nov 6, 2010 21:22 UTC (Sat) by dlang (guest, #313)
In reply to: Shuttleworth: Unity on Wayland by gmaxwell
Parent article: Shuttleworth: Unity on Wayland

adding more info here.

it's really hard to put a couple hundred gig of ram into a laptop, but trivial to remote the display from a server that has a couple hundred gig of ram to a laptop that you can carry into a conference room.

you may try to argue that the app could be written to work that way through other means, but that misses the point that with X the app author doesn't have to make a decision of if the app should be network accessable or not. If app authors have to go to extra effort to make their stuff network accessable, most of them won't go to that effort (after all, nobody needs that anyway, that's why the feature was removed from linux systems to start with right?) and the only apps that will have the ability to be networked are the ancient X apps (that predate the change), or high-end 'enterprise' commercial apps where someone is paying for the feature.

this leaves out the huge middle ground where the app author never thought about the need to be networked, but that app ends up being the perfect thing to use when backed by the right hardware. Instead someone will have to fork or recreate the app in a networked version.


to post comments

Shuttleworth: Unity on Wayland

Posted Nov 7, 2010 9:31 UTC (Sun) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link] (2 responses)

> with X the app author doesn't have to make a decision of if the app should
> be network accessable or not.

Maybe true for simple apps, but complex apps are basically unusable over modest-latency links unless they've been significantly optimized to reduce round-trips to the X server. There are a lot of X APIs that you simply cannot use if you want to be fast over the network.

> this leaves out the huge middle ground where the app author never thought > about the need to be networked, but that app ends up being the perfect
> thing to use when backed by the right hardware. Instead someone will have
> to fork or recreate the app in a networked version.

Or just run it under a modern screen-remoting tool.

Shuttleworth: Unity on Wayland

Posted Nov 9, 2010 2:02 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (1 responses)

There are a lot of systems on fast LANs with big servers nearby. Low-latency LANs are downright *commonplace* these days: why not optimize for them?

Shuttleworth: Unity on Wayland

Posted Nov 9, 2010 6:40 UTC (Tue) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

at this point the argument isn't even about optimizing for them, it's just arguing that we should support them with something a little more efficient that bitmap images of the screen being shipped around (the VNC approach)


Copyright © 2025, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds