The Wayland Situation: Facts About X vs. Wayland (Phoronix)
The Wayland Situation: Facts About X vs. Wayland (Phoronix)
Posted Jun 9, 2013 9:36 UTC (Sun) by Frej (guest, #4165)In reply to: The Wayland Situation: Facts About X vs. Wayland (Phoronix) by marcH
Parent article: The Wayland Situation: Facts About X vs. Wayland (Phoronix)
I've haven't used X/linux in years.. but it's quite simple to understand?
How do you come to the issue that must have multiple window managers? You you just assume it, and then you even state you don't know, and complain anyway. Not cool ;) Think of VNC as the abstract method of sending images vs. a protocol of drawing commands (Core X). Why does either method limit you of creating anything you need? Free your mind :-)
How do you come to the issue that must have multiple window managers? You you just assume it, and then you even state you don't know, and complain anyway. Not cool ;) Think of VNC as the abstract method of sending images vs. a protocol of drawing commands (Core X). Why does either method limit you of creating anything you need? Free your mind :-)
PS: You are probable using a crappy implementation of VNC (as in method) in remote X either way. As the drawing primitives by toolkits today consists of mostly sending images.
(Log in to post comments)
The Wayland Situation: Facts About X vs. Wayland (Phoronix)
Posted Jun 18, 2013 11:15 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
I think of VNC as 'incredibly slow'. I have never used any implementation of VNC nor whatever the MS Terminal Server protocol is called that could scroll an Emacs window with text in it at more than about three to five screens per second, with a noticeable lag -- over a local network! And this applies to scrolls by one line as much as to scrolls by whole pages, which is a bit tough if you want to scroll up five or six lines, line-by-line, as I do quite often. Meanwhile under X, even remote X (over an Ethernet LAN) scrolling is latency-free: it scrolls so fast it is a blur.