Linked by the_randymon on Wed 9th Jan 2013 00:48 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 548024
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: What an utter non-sense
by renox on Thu 10th Jan 2013 13:19
in reply to "RE[2]: What an utter non-sense"
"As for your "Wayland is better than X" message, this depends on the situation, for network transparency Wayland will use more bandwith than X (not a big issue since you can use X with XWayland).
Not sure how you can make that claim, given that Wayland currently has no support whatsoever for network transparency, and no plans beyond "do something at the compositor level". "
Easy: the Wayland protocol is based on sending buffers (images) between programs(clients) and the server, so once you're at the 'compositor level' the only thing you can work on are images.
For applications which works mostly with text, sending 'raw' images will use much more bandwidth than X Render's way of rendering (send the glyph once, then send commands to draw text, reusing many times the glyphs).
If is of course possible to compress images to reduce bandwidth but this requires a lot of processing and adds latency..




Member since:
2008-08-19
Not sure how you can make that claim, given that Wayland currently has no support whatsoever for network transparency, and no plans beyond "do something at the compositor level".