Comment by gf000
16 hours ago
I don't really get your first 2 paragraphs. We are talking about connecting remotely to another computer, you can't do much at the other end of a network call with a server allocated buffer - at most you can cache stuff there. But that ain't helping with a video or any kind of fancier than a solid rectangle graphics.
And sure, simple UIs have their place - but they will also work just as well with a proper transport protocol, hell, they would compress even better. So just waypipe that simple UI as you see it fit.
You can cache icons on the server, you do not need to send them over a network, that is it. With video, I'm saying it is a case where wayland is not better, it is just the same.
So you say compression of said icons, etc, is better than caching them on the server? No.. You've mentioned web, but no one does that on the web.
I mean, no one does what you suggest on the web. You do not render a web page to an image and send that to a browser. To summarize. No one wants X11 transparency to run a web browser. But ok, if someone wants to do that.. X11 still can be more advantegeous over waypipe.
Because on the web we have a very very complex protocol(s) built up over decades to tell a client what to draw locally. That's html/css/js and its scope is far larger than of x draw commands (it's also an application model).
But again, GUI apps don't use X draw commands for the most part, so they are effectively a bitmap/video stream to X's eyes. And what's better to transport a video stream than a format designed for efficient transport of video streams.
2 replies →