Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 91 to 97 of 97

Thread: Ubuntu Allegedly To Have Its Own X, Wayland Alternative

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Seattle, WA, US
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    We may finally get Windows RDP quality
    That bad, eh? Shit.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KellyClowers View Post
    That bad, eh? Shit.
    Compared to what? VNC? No, I'll take RDP over VNC any day.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    Compared to what? VNC? No, I'll take RDP over VNC any day.
    The worst was whatever Citrix ICA used. I think they rolled their own scheme. That thing was unusable.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    The worst was whatever Citrix ICA used. I think they rolled their own scheme. That thing was unusable.
    Never used it, probably for the better lol

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    Then so be it.
    Just strip out everything that can be stripped out, and if all GTK and Qt applications still work, and almost nothing of X is left, then that is just good, right?

    Then the codebase will be smaller, it will be easier to maintain, quicker to compile, easier to fix bugs, and everything will be great.
    There's one big impediment to X11-Light that does shout back to my issue of design it out, spec it out, write it out. And Daniel hit on it during the talk, X has 3 API's for input...and they are all inter-dependent on eachother. It frightens me to think about other spots in the Xorg stack where we have a similar issue where API's are inter-dependent on eachother AND redundant of eachother. So just "taking out the old stuff" does not necessarily work. Certain parts of the stack WOULD have to be redesigned and rewritten to make sure the code is clean at the end.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    <...> So just "taking out the old stuff" does not necessarily work. Certain parts of the stack WOULD have to be redesigned and rewritten to make sure the code is clean at the end.
    exactly

    it wouldnt work nor be enough, when looking at the at the "X12" proposal (or the "Why X is not our ideal window system" paper), you realize that certain aspects of X are "less than ideal" (when not straight out broken) at the core protocol level (like the 16 bit unsigned dimension / 16 bit signed coordinate model allowing for 32K x 32K pixmaps with 3/4 of their surface unaddressable - or the drag and drop and clipboard model..)
    and that if you want a sane and modern infrastructure (especially, one accomodating GPU's as first class citizens) what remains after taking parts away also need to undergo significant rethinking ( at which point it becomes something which is not X any more...)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •