Linked by fsmag on Wed 13th May 2009 01:27 UTC
X11, Window Managers "Over time, many people have complained about the X Window system; the X Window system, or Xorg in its current most popular implementation, is the layer between applications and the graphics adapter. It has some fantastic features (like the ability to run application over the network) and some shortcoming. One thing is sure: it has evolved over the last year or so, immensely, especially as far as 3D and hardware acceleration."
Thread beginning with comment 363288
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: network
by karunko on Wed 13th May 2009 07:55 UTC in reply to "network"
karunko
Member since:
2008-10-28

Running X over the network can be *very* useful


That was the whole point. When you work in a large organization (academic or otherwise) where you have UNIX boxes running the gamut from Linux to Solaris to HP-UX, nothing beats X Window. Trouble is, most people use it on their desktop (not by choice but because there are no real alternatives) where server and client run on the same computer and the benefits of such architecture are lost.


but one need a local network to get decent performance.


A fast DSL can get you an acceptable performance level. It's not zippy by any mean (and forget about eye candy) but it's usable. Still, there are better alternatives like VNC which support features like Low Bandiwth X, compression, etc.



Reece

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: network
by evert on Wed 13th May 2009 08:39 in reply to "RE: network"
evert Member since:
2005-07-06

from wikipedia:

In computing, LBX, or Low Bandwidth X, was a protocol to use the X Window System over network links with low bandwidth and high latency. It was introduced in X11R6.3 ("Broadway") in 1996, but never achieved wide use. It was disabled by default as of X.Org Server 7.1, and was removed for version 7.2.

And the other options are also less great:
NX is not installed by default,
vnc still needs an X server running on the remote machine

with X over SSH, I can use remote X clients from, for example, an ubuntu server without a GUI, and show them on my windows desktop. x over ssh is great, but slow. my experience with DSL is that it is still too slow, so X over SSH needs work.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: network
by karunko on Wed 13th May 2009 13:19 in reply to "RE[2]: network"
karunko Member since:
2008-10-28

vnc still needs an X server running on the remote machine


No, VNC is the remote server. So much that on UNIX it can't even hijack the standard desktop (Display :0) by default. You set it up with a small configuration file where you decide what window manager to run (the simpler, the better) and a few basic X clients -- and maybe even set it up to run in 8 or 16 bit color mode to generate less network traffic and obtain better performance. Then again, the goal is getting the job done rather than eye candy.



Reece

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: network
by coolvibe on Wed 13th May 2009 14:26 in reply to "RE[2]: network"
coolvibe Member since:
2007-08-16

Installing NX is a breeze. I prefer it for remote X-ing. It not being installed by default is a weak argument, IMHO.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: network
by sbergman27 on Fri 15th May 2009 13:41 in reply to "RE[2]: network"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

And the other options are also less great:
NX is not installed by default,
vnc still needs an X server running on the remote machine


apt-get install freenx?
yum install freenx?

NX is absolutely fantastic for high latency and/or low bandwidth connections.

VNC is OK over a WAN. It is not sensitive to latency like the standard X protocols. But it is noticeably slower than NX, and the video quality is not nearly as good unless you have a pretty fast connection. Both work equally well over a LAN. But there, the simplicity of using regular X is preferable. Unless the clients are Windows clients, in which case VNC or NX can be more straightforward. (Saves a Cygwin installation, or purchase of a commercial server.)

Edited 2009-05-15 13:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: network
by jabjoe on Wed 13th May 2009 09:49 in reply to "RE: network"
jabjoe Member since:
2009-05-06

Trouble is, most people use it on their desktop (not by choice but because there are no real alternatives) where server and client run on the same computer and the benefits of such architecture are lost.


It's a very useful abstraction. X11 is a very clever design. It makes crazy things like compiz/xnest and more, easier. The client and server being on the same machine is a small overhead. Many apps use TCP for IPC.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: network
by siride on Wed 13th May 2009 14:18 in reply to "RE[2]: network"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

But X is not one of those apps. It uses Unix domain sockets and shared memory for IPC, on the local machine at least.

Reply Parent Score: 2