Ubuntu moving away from X

[markw-FJ05HQ0HCKaWd6l5hS35sQ at public.gmane.org (Mark Woodward)]

On 11/08/2010 12:00 PM, discuss-request-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org wrote:
> Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 20:36:49 -0500
> From: Richard Pieri<richard.pieri-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org>
> Subject: Re: Discuss Digest, Vol 37, Issue 7
> To: L-blu List<discuss-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org>
> Message-ID:<06130608-B6E1-425E-BEDD-511CC0F79705-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Nov 7, 2010, at 8:02 PM, Mark Woodward wrote:
>    
>> >  
>> >  Exactly my point. Once these applications are "ported" or recompiled to
>> >  the non-X system, they lose an amazing key operational advantage.
>>      
> What, a cumbersome windowing system on top of an archaic display system?
>
> No, seriously, I just don't see remote X display as being that big a deal.  It's useful, yes, but it's also*slow*.  Very slow, particularly for complex GTK and Qt applications.  A remote desktop system like VNC or NoMachine is generally superior for remote display.
>    
This is absolutely false. VNC does not even compare. If I have a 
1280x1024 display on the target machine, and a 1280x800 display on my 
laptop. Using VNC to connect to the target machine is unusable, you can 
scale it, at which point you can't read it, or scroll at which point you 
can't use it.

Remoting specific applications is a very powerful feature. People should 
really try to understand it before disregarding it.

>    
>> >  I have used gimp, openoffice, firefox, and thunderbird, amongst many
>> >  others "remotely" over X.
>>      
> So have I.  Firefox isn't too bad, but neither is it too good.  OpenOffice is a pig.
>    
Over the internet or a slow connection, sure, on a local lan, its fine 
and a lot better than trying to maintain
>    
>> >  Can you show the GUI of iTunes or Safari remotely on another Mac?
>> >  (without the whole desktop?) I can show Firefox and "Rhythmbox" on
>> >  remotely. Its one of the reasons I find Mac unusable.
>>      
> No... but then again, why would I want to?
This is exactly the problem. People don't understand how powerful the 
feature is. Take my home entertainment system, I use this feature to 
control rythmbox from my laptop without having to turn on the TV. I can 
even control the music from my office down the hall.
> NextStep had this and it was both a massive security problem and unusably slow over anything other than short haul networks.  The Mac 10.0 (10.1?) beta dumped it for those reasons.  And besides, OS X has had a fast VNC server built right into it for the last two (three?  I forget if Tiger had it) major versions
VNC is a dog. It is slow compared to X remoting. VNC uses raw bitmap, X 
uses X protocol primitives which are much faster, and compress better 
using ssh -C.

>> >  Like I said, how about the native Mac applications? Once there is a
>> >  "compatibility layer" there is a two tier system of haves and have nots.
>> >  Some applications will work remotely and some will not. Who to say which
>> >  ones will or won't? It fractures the compatibility in Linux.
>>      
> Oh, no, the sky is falling!  Linux is terribly fractured in many ways.  That is both its strength and its weakness.  Adding another isn't going to change that.
>    
Removing valuable functionality that is usable is no way to improve 
anything.