<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Renaud Hebert <<a href="mailto:renozyx@gmail.com">renozyx@gmail.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Hello, While I'm not found of Wayland (I would have preferred X12), I note that your email to Wayland's developpers mailing list has all the subtility of a troll, making sure that whatever point you may have will be totally ignored by everyone (I'm quite sure many will ensure that their mailer will drop your emails from now on). </blockquote><div>its not a troll. I am sincere about everything i say. These are very real concerns of mine about wayland and how it will impact me. Someone saying some thing that someone else may disagree with is not a troll as long as as it is a sincere opinion. We are all allowed to have our opinions, right. As far as X12. X12 is not needed. that is because X11 provides the extension mechanism that allows you do do anything that you need to extend the protocol and do so in a backwards compatable way. That was one of then many things X did right. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> Also you're wrong about this: "from what i hear of wayland, applications give wayland a pixmap, meaning the application has to do all rendering on the CPU" applications give Wayland the address of a buffer in GPU's memory not in main memory so the application doesn't have to do the rendering on the CPU. Criticising before doing your homework ensure that nobody will listen: well done (not)! </blockquote><div> Ooops. Sorry about that. You see, i read the documents but, I guess i must have missed that detail. It was a mistaken misunderstanding and I am sorry. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> Also about network transparency, while one could add network transparency in Weston and this could work in a LAN, I doubt that it would work correctly in a WAN: Wayland only see images of the application, so the bandwith used would be big (not sure about the RTT though). So IMHO unfortunately even if Wayland is made network transparent, while X is already not very good in a WAN, Wayland will likely be worst.. </blockquote><div> I have used VNC which is pixmap based but can use compression of the pixmap, and it works well enough over a WAN. Ive tried it from numerous places and it works fine over DSL and cable modem. Both X and VNC can be run over SSH with added encryption. There are already existing projects, NX Technology, which can compress the X protocol stream as well. If an app makes use of GLX, a lot of compression is done by the app using where possible the vector graphics API. X also has basic vector primatives in the core protocol. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> BR, reno. </blockquote></div>