They just don't use X Windows. They use things like ICA.
Fuck all it is.Quote:
The latency spent transmitting rendering commands and bitmaps are far higher than just running it locally. This design is so 1950's.
X11 is, very literally, 1986 technology. Think 1986. Like really swear-to-god 1986. Like Micheal Jackson 'Beat It' 1986. That was when X11 networking was designed and implemented. It's been pretty much set in stone since then.
Yeah. Have fun in your 'real world' mom's basement.Quote:
It's a good wish but in the real world, it doesn't really work. It never worked for me.
Those of us that actually implement and support large scale systems know that X11 is fine, but it's hardly the only game in town and it's far from the most practical and most efficient anymore.
You want to see what the real world looks like outside your Linux desktop?
"Now with iPhone client support!"
Take a careful look at company's name at the bottom of the website. They make a shitload of money because X11 networking is simply not good enough. They are used in literally thousands of huge companies world wide. Remote desktop, remote applications is big business for them.
I like X Window networking. OpenSSH integration makes it deadly simple and relatively secure were otherwise it's a total nightmare to use and has just about the worst network security you could possibly imagine. But the world has moved on. Sad to say.
You don't need X to do remote applications or have remote desktops. You don't need Xorg X server running your video card to display, render, or be backwards compatible with X applications either.
I can take any Windows desktop and in about 20 minutes of work get very good X11 compatibility with SSH integration. With OS X X windows is even more trivial to use. It's practically built-in.
You can also run X Windows applications FROM your Windows or OS X desktops. People don't do it, but it's possible. Now think very carefully why people don't do it... :)
If VNC was the only alternative to X then we'd all be f*king stupid to move away from X. But it's not.
Seriously. Check this shit out:
Then you have a DDX specifically for Wayland. Call it 'Wayland DDX'.
Leave the rest the same. 100% ABI compatible with your X applications.
Xorg XServer is not the only DDX. You have a few different Windows DDX for running X on Windows. XQuartz for running X applications on OS X. You even have Xephyr for running a X Server on your X Server. You don't need your X Server running on your hardware to be compatible with software, hell you can even get hardware acceleration if the implementation is good enough (think: AIGLX).
Skip down to the part were it says "X as a Wayland client"
Even Xephyr has XRender acceleration support:
Why are lots of people whining about Wayland not being network transparent? Seriously, who cares. You can always add a module to make it network transparent (the devs even said they would one time). In reality desktop users do not need network transparency. It is just a waste of resources, even if very slight. What the hell is with these pointless features that trade-off performance.
It is different between 'take a screen shot and transmit it to another pc' and 'tunnel my all GUI commands and pixmaps to another pc to let it assemble and render the window for me'
The first one is your acclaimed large corporation remote desktop and multi million dollar industry blah blah, and the latter is X. This rendering window in 'X server' which is actually a client pc and run program as 'X client' which actually run on a server is utterly stupid at best.