![]() ![]() X11 has been around a long time in one form or another, and some of it's benefits are also it's weaknesses.I’ve recently upgraded Microsft Teams to version 1. There is no "desktop in a window" which is often the case with RDP and VNC, or having to open the remote desktop full screen, obscuring local windows.īut X11 will almost certainly be slower than Wayland (and MS Windows applications) if the Client runs on the same system as you are working on, even though a number of speed-ups have been added to the X.org server since the days of MIT X11 (before XFree86 and the X.org fork of that). They can overlap, be displayed side-by-side, and behave pretty much the same. You can also have client programs from many different remote systems displayed simultaneously on your local screen, and cut and paste (as far as it works, it's less flexible than cutting and pasting on Windows) works seamlessly across all clients.Īlso, if correctly set up (which is the default on most Linux systems running an X11 server), you cannot easily tell from the appearance which window on your display is local and which is remote. You can have many people running Client programs on a remote system without having to set up lightweight virtual machines or virtual consoles on the remote system. What this means is that traditional X11 clients are probably more efficient and faster than RDP, but clients that render into an X11 pixmap are probably less efficient and slower than RDP.īut X11 has many other advantages. Because of the inherent inefficiency of this, RDP evolved to just send deltas of the screen, with compression and many other tricks to increase efficiency. In comparison, RDP, which is really a remote control application of the frame buffer of the console of a remote system, always just sends bitmaps over the network. This allowed them to use whatever methods they wanted to manipulate the image, at the expense of loading the network with large amounts of data for each displayed frame. What many did was to locally render on the Client into a pixmap (X11's name for a bitmap image) what they wanted to display, and then send the whole pixmap to the Server. I say 'traditional' because many application writers didn't like the constraints placed on them by the X11 protocol and it's supported primitives. ![]() This means that for traditional X11 Client programs, the network bandwidth was less of an issue, and the performance of the system running the X11 Server was more important. The Client sends through graphics primitive operations, and the Server then renders these requests onto your local display. The Client runs on the remote system, and the Server is on your local system, controlling the display and input devices.įor traditional X11 clients, the bulk of the heavy lifting is done by the Server. X11 was designed back in the days of low performance networks, so the design is much more client-server than, say RDP. I'm nor that familiar with RDP performance now, but I would like to add something about how X11 and RDP differ. Wayland (IMBO) is Change for the sake of Change. SystemD is like this, Pulse Audio has been accused of being this, and a LOT of people vote with their installs by choosing Linux distros like Devuan that have NONE of that crap in them a large bloated monolithic solution vs something more distributed (even to the point of client and server across a network). Wayland sounds MORE like "The Micros~1 way of doing things" i.e. I have often pointed out where these misconceptions about the user base come from:Ĭ) Poor sampling with surveys (Stack Overflow is NOT a representative sample)ĭ) living in a bubble world It just makes sense to edit and build things on them this way. But now, seems good with a new maintainer.Īnd I am _ALWAYS_ using X11 over TCP with embedded devices running Linux. money and must do consulting gigs to survive. Problem is getting paid for my efforts - I do not have F.U. If Xorg were going to die I would probably do what I could to fork it. It's the fact that THEY ARE DOING IT.l Their narrow view of how computers are used (and possible demand that we play with our toys ONLY the way THEY tell us, and no other) just reflects a possible level of arrogance and disdain for normal people. The fact that they do this in open source is NOT the problem (it has happened a LOT with Windows, after all). No, Wayland is yet another thing (similar to what Poettering has done) being crammed at us by the 'new, shiny, it is OUR turn now" too-young-to-realize-what-they-are-doing types. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |