[colug-432] wondering about Wayland

[Rob Funk]

This link just appeared on LWN.net:
  "The Wayland Situation: Facts About X vs. Wayland"
  http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=x_wayland_situation&num=1

The except that LWN.net highlighted:
"'X is Network Transparent.' Wrong. [It's] not. Core X and DRI-1 were 
network transparent. No one uses either one. Shared-Memory, DRI-2 and 
DRI-3000 are NOT network transparent, they do NOT work over the network. 
Modern day X comes down to synchronous, poorly done VNC. If it was poorly 
done, async, VNC then maybe we could make it work. But [it's] not. Xlib is 
synchronous (and the movement to XCB is a slow one) which makes networking 
a NIGHTMARE."


On Sunday, June 02, 2013 05:11:39 PM Rick Troth wrote:
> In RPi space, Wayland is catching on.  It is expected to replace X.
> But I have a question.
> 
> Given the bloat of vestigial requirements, and the evident chattiness
> of the protocol, it seems reasonable to say goodbye eventually.  And X
> never did audio when used remotely.  But it is that remote capability
> (and broad interoperability) that I most appreciate about X.
> 
> Interop will only happen when there is wide adoption.
> But do any of you know if Wayland can talk remotely?
> That's the question.
> 
> I'm looking for the ability of an application to be a "client" of a
> remote "display server".  It's wonderful to be able to launch, say,
> Thunderbird on one machine while the rest of my desktop (window
> mangler and all the rest) are running on another.  (Aside from the
> pain of X chattiness, that is.)  If it's not there already, I wonder
> how some of us could stick a bug in the ear of the Wayland developers.
> 
> Of course, it would be good if the "protocol" would accommodate audio
> as well as video.

-- 
Rob Funk <rfunk at funknet.net>
http://funknet.net/rfunk