SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Chris Siebenmann over on his personal web page at the University of Toronto writes about X networking. He points out two main shortcomings preventing realization of the original vision of network transparancy. One is network speed and latency. The other is a too narrow scope for X's communication facilities.
X's network transparency was not designed as 'it will run xterm well'; originally it was to be something that should let you run almost everything remotely, providing a full environment. Even apart from the practical issues covered in Daniel Stone's slide presentation [warning for PDF], it's clear that it's been years since X could deliver a real first class environment over the network. You cannot operate with X over the network in the same way that you do locally. Trying to do so is painful and involves many things that either don't work at all or perform so badly that you don't want to use them.
Remote display protocols remain useful, but it's time to admit another way will have to be found. What's the latest word on Wayland or Mir?
Source : X's network transparency has wound up mostly being a failure
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday February 10 2018, @06:53PM
Plus 1 for Tigervnc.
However, on Gigabit ethernet, you could run most desktops IN HOUSE on X-networking (gnome kde xfce), especially if you turned on compression. I don't routinely see any problems due to faulty or missing network protocol.
X is just bandwidth heavy. Its network layer shim is at the wrong place in the sofware stack. Citrix has the same design flaw.
I've found that x over the network is somewhat usable on 100meg, and quite serviceable on 1000meg. Just make sure every switch and cable between you and the other end it Gigabit capable, which generally amounts to nothing over the internet.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.