Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday February 10 2018, @08:12AM   Printer-friendly
from the maybe-Y-will-be-better dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Saturday February 10 2018, @04:21PM (2 children)

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Saturday February 10 2018, @04:21PM (#636034) Journal

    Why? I mean, sure, it can be cool to see an X based app running remotely, but there are a lot of text screen based resources, like, oh, the "screen" utility, and wget and links for some web work, rsync, and bash, and well, every utility in sbin really. Do not need X for system administration, remote or local. As for X terminals, computers are so cheap now I don't see the point of bothering with a dumb terminal, not when you can smarten it up by employing a $5 Raspberry Pi with the monitor, keyboard, and mouse, each of which likely costs more than the computer. Having a kind of KVM could be a reason, but that too is suspect. It's hard for one person to effectively utilize several GUIs. Maybe for visualizing proteins as you're folding them, or for playing several characters at the same time in the same MMORPG or FPS, but that latter is just easier with several complete computers.

    I used X tunneled through ssh only once, to remotely run Wireshark (just before the name change from Ethereal), to diagnose some network issues with a VoIP app on a remote machine, and that only because I didn't bother checking into whether Ethereal had a text based interface (seems like it should), while all the tools for X tunneling were already set up. Needed packet sniffing at both ends to figure out what was going on.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Saturday February 10 2018, @04:36PM

    by sjames (2882) on Saturday February 10 2018, @04:36PM (#636041) Journal

    I prefer text based administration, but there are too many corner cases such as installers that don't offer text as an option (for some stupid reason), browser apps that don't work in text AND insist on connecting to a randomized port so you can't open an ssh tunnel in advance, etc that it's better to just use X over an ssh tunnel.

    In my home setup, I have a desktop machine that's nice and quiet and I have a 2U server that sounds a bit like a shop-vac when it gets busy. So I put it in another room and use X over the network for CPU intensive work that wants a graphical display.

  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday February 10 2018, @07:18PM

    by frojack (1554) on Saturday February 10 2018, @07:18PM (#636107) Journal

    Why? I mean, sure, it can be cool to see an X based app running remotely, but there are a lot of text screen based resources, like, oh, the "screen" utility, and wget and links for some web work, rsync, and bash, and well,

    Why? Because there are some applications where its necessary to have graphical outputs, and the quickest path is X over a sufficiently fast network.

    Rather than rewriting each application to send data over a socket and then write a client to graphically display that shit, (a custom one off job for each application needing remote display) which can take man-years to build, just use the tools at hand. X over the network.

    Its easier to get gigabit ethernet end-to-end (across the campus or across the ocean) than it is to rewrite applications.

    Sure, starting from scratch you can build that data-shipping-to-client into the each new app. Its easy, because there are so many standards to choose from, right? /snort. No matter which you pick it will be wrong.

    (We've done this in my day job, and found we could hang the tcp-stack between the software and the display generation, but that required a client, and it also meant we had to design our own transmission protocol, and we had to encrypt stuff in both directions. But we had the requirement up front, and full control of the data-to-screen stack. We weren't trying to retrofit it into someone's existing steaming pile of agile crap.)

    The real world does not revolve around a collection of command line utilities, and wget and links for "web work". And the real world has to be multi platform.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.