Shuttleworth: Unity on Wayland

Posted Nov 7, 2010 9:31 UTC (Sun) by roc (subscriber, #30627)
In reply to: Shuttleworth: Unity on Wayland by dlang
Parent article: Shuttleworth: Unity on Wayland

> 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)