LPC: Life after X

Posted Nov 12, 2010 6:02 UTC (Fri) by jch (guest, #51929)
In reply to: LPC: Life after X by mjthayer
Parent article: LPC: Life after X

> Given that the X server is still going to be around...

That won't help you much if the application is no longer able to act as an X client.

LPC: Life after X

Posted Nov 12, 2010 8:56 UTC (Fri) by mjthayer (guest, #39183) [Link] (3 responses)

>> Given that the X server is still going to be around...

>That won't help you much if the application is no longer able to act as an X client.

Why shouldn't it be able to? If the X server is around people can write new X clients if it makes sense (although they will probably find other ways to do network forwarding when they start to think about it). If it uses Gtk+ for X it can even blend in seamlessly with the non-X clients.

LPC: Life after X

Posted Nov 12, 2010 10:36 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (2 responses)

if all the new applications are written to run on X then wayland has no native apps and does no good.

if all the new applications are written to run on wayland, then they cannot be clients for X and the fact that there is still an X server you can run on top of wayland does no good (except for obsolete apps that pre-date wayland)

do you see why people who need network transparency may be opposed to the common development going in a direction that doesn't support it?

LPC: Life after X

Posted Nov 12, 2010 19:14 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] (1 responses)

Your reply implies that it's impossible to layer network transparency on top of Wayland. I doubt that's true.

LPC: Life after X

Posted Nov 12, 2010 19:39 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

you are right, I am assuming that good network transparency (as opposed to what VNC etc provide) it is going to require some consideration in the design of the windowing system, and since the people working on the windowing system are taking the attitude 'nobody needs network transparency', such consideration is unlikely.