Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 5th Nov 2010 19:15 UTC, submitted by Debjit
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu Finally. Finally the leader of a major distribution who has the guts to stand up and say what a lot of people have known for a long time, but didn't dare to say because it usually leads to a storm of criticism. Mark Shuttleworth has announced that Ubuntu will be moving away from X.org, opting to go with Wayland instead.
Thread beginning with comment 449005
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Delgarde
Member since:
2008-08-19

Yes but you are not the use case Ubuntu is going for. What good would network transparency do on a desktop or a netbook?


Depends on what kind of environment you run that desktop in. On your home PC, it's probably not a lot of use. In a software development shop where logging into other people's machine with ssh is routine, it's absolutely invaluable.

I never understood why X tried to do everything within itself. Things like input, drivers, etc. should have been handled by the kernel to begin with, imo.


Ok, so which kernel are you talking about? Linux? But X11 predates the Linux kernel by about 4-5 years. Or if you mean the kernel in a more generic sense, then you either need all possible kernels to present the same driver interface (which isn't going to happen), or you need some code that's both OS-specific and X11-specific - e.g the evdev input driver on Linux.

Reply Parent Score: 2

boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

"Yes but you are not the use case Ubuntu is going for. What good would network transparency do on a desktop or a netbook?


Depends on what kind of environment you run that desktop in. On your home PC, it's probably not a lot of use. In a software development shop where logging into other people's machine with ssh is routine, it's absolutely invaluable.
"

Indeed. Remote X was an invaluable feature in the lab I worked in. It was actually a lot better than (the way I understand that) most remote desktop clients work, because it didn't lock the remote machine's screen: ten different users could be remoted into the same machine from ten other seats, without affecting a user actually sitting at that seat. (IIRC, windows remote desktop, at least, will lock the remote screen. This would not have worked.) There are some situations where remote X is extremely helpful.

And some of us have more than one computer at home, too. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

IIRC, windows remote desktop, at least, will lock the remote screen. This would not have worked.


RDP server in Windows XP Pro (probably Vista and 7 as well) only allows 1 user to be logged in, regardless if its a local login or a remote login.

Terminal Services in Windows 2003 (and newer I'm guessing) allows up to 5 users logged in simultaneously. If you want more than 5, you need to pay for extra licenses.

There are hacks online to allow the terminal services dlls from Win2K3 to be used on a WinXP system, allowing you to connect 5 users simultaneously. Works surprisingly well. ;) Especially when XP is running in a Linux-KVM virtual machine. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11


Indeed. Remote X was an invaluable feature in the lab I worked in. It was actually a lot better than (the way I understand that) most remote desktop clients work, because it didn't lock the remote machine's screen: ten different users could be remoted into the same machine from ten other seats, without affecting a user actually sitting at that seat. (IIRC, windows remote desktop, at least, will lock the remote screen. This would not have worked.)


That's false. Remote Desktop Protocol, or, "windows remote destop" as you like to name it, actually allows many users to use RDP at the same time without "locking the screen". Maybe you confuse it with VNC or Radmin?

Anyway, ssh -x sucks badly across a long distance, RDP is much better in that aspect. There are many solutions which allows to use the GUI remote and which do a much better job than X.

X protocol is archaic and a dumb thing to use in 21st century.

Maybe they should name Wayland WNX: WNX IS NOT X. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2