[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Desktop] What accounts on a machine?



Hi,

On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 12:09:40PM -0800, Matthew Tedder wrote:

> Yes--X is largely a protocol.  It's mostly very low-level, except for key 
> things.  Font rendering, for example, normally takes up a large part of GUI 
> building CPU cycles.  The X server, sitting on the client machine, thus 
> greatly reduces CPU load on the server. 

Yes, but sending rendered bitmaps over the X channel take hogs of
bandwidth. It wasn't even designed to work that way; X has string
drawing primitives.

> The synergistic effects of running applications on the server also includes 
> sharing program code, and only requiring separate data instances for each 
> user using that same application.  This sharing is at the kernel level.  
> Desktop componant architectures such as those in KDE (in particular) are 
> greatly amplified in terms of sharing and performance.  

Of course, that's a good thing. But I'm still maintaining that sending a
fully rendered desktop over the wire and every mouse event puts high
demands on latency.

> > <pipe dream>
> >
> > Looking back, it would have been great if X would have allowed a
> > separate (widget) rendering server, just like it allows a separate font
> > server and a separate window manager, making the X protocol more
> > widget-oriented instead of pixel-oriented.
> 
> Since X doesn't render widgets at all, and it does support extension modules, 
> why not just make a widget server for it?  Actually, LTSP makes that even 
> unnecessary.

I'll have to look at LTSP; I've heard the name but know nothing else
about it, other than that I guess the acronym stands for linux terminal
server project.

> Errr...  that would disallow a lot of the flexibility that differentiates the 
> two......such as signals and slots verses strictly event driven widgets.

No, that's nothing to do with the protocol. The 'widget protocol client'
could offer both C and C++ language bindings with different programming
models.

The X protocol itself doesn't mandate a particular programming model
either.

> However, a widget server using XMLGUI over Jabber-based webservices would 
> revolutionize and render the web obsolete, in my opinion (So long as XML 
> document formats are allowed within--which is a natural).

Well, that's largely what I had in mind. Closing the gap between the X
protocol and http+html. Distributed computing, internet style.

Cheers,


Emile.

-- 
E-Advies / Emile van Bergen   |   emile@e-advies.info
tel. +31 (0)70 3906153        |   http://www.e-advies.info

Attachment: pgp83MVwMXUBI.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: