Network transparency argument
mostawesomedude at gmail.com
Tue Nov 9 11:59:46 PST 2010
Indeed. What's really amazing to me is that people are not realizing that
one of the founding principles of Wayland is no uniform rendering API. This
precludes remote apps because the only way to render is directly, without
Wayland's help. The other path just leads back to X.
Sending from a mobile, pardon the brevity. ~ C.
On Nov 9, 2010 11:52 AM, "David Eisner" <deisner at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 1:48 PM, <Darxus at chaosreigns.com> wrote:
>> The "network transparency argument" is pointless because network
>> transparency via the X protocol will never go away.
>> I think people who are concerned about this must not be aware that X
>> clients already run seamlessly with Windows or Mac OS as the native
>> graphical environment.
> Such ignorance may account for some concern. But even those who know
> that Wayland will support an X Server Wayland Client might be worried
> for the following reason: Should Wayland become ubiquitous on the Free
> desktop, it may come to pass that most (non-browser-hosted) apps will
> be written as native Wayland clients. Let's say you really need to run
> AppFoo on a remote system. If AppFoo isn't an X client, you're out of
> Now that's not necessarily a show-stopper -- VNC or SPICE might be
> good enough. And if the app is built using a suitable toolkit (e.g.
> Qt) then it should be possible to compile it as an X client or a
> Wayland app, if it is written carefully.
> The compromises necessary to build network transparency into Wayland
> may not be worth the trouble (I don't know enough to say whether this
> is so). But it's not necessarily the case that those raising the
> issue aren't aware that they'll be able to run X apps on Wayland.
> David Eisner http://cradle.brokenglass.com
> wayland-devel mailing list
> wayland-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the wayland-devel