Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
On 11/5/2010 5:38 PM, MBR wrote: >> I expect X to continue to be supported for a long time, and it will be >> the environment of choice for servers (where, just as now, you'll >> typically only install the "client" part, i.e. the server in the >> backwards terminology that X uses) > The terminology is not backwards. It makes perfect sense if you > understand what's meant by a server, and calling the X server the > "client" makes things confusing as hell. I understand that argument (not quoted). But I also understand the way that most people think of clients and servers. A server is a distant thing that does something for you, and a client is something that you operate to get the server to do something. But in X terminology you sit in front of a server and connect to a client. The X client runs on a server computer, and the X server runs on a client (i.e., desktop) computer. Backwards. The main point I was making is that installing the part that X calls a client is useful on a server (in the non-X sense, like a computer providing storage or web services) so you can run GUI apps on the server and control them remotely. Running what X calls a server (the part that actually puts graphics on your computer screen) is less useful, since you don't normally sit in front of the screen of a server (in the non-X sense) and operate it directly.
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |