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 digitalaudiorock on Saturday February 10 2018, @07:16PM
Yup...I do this all the time. This shit has just plain worked for it's intended purposes just about forever, yet suddenly now, in the days of gigabit LANs and 200 Mbps Internet, the Wayland fanboys want us to believe that it's too slow to be viable or some such crap? Talk about FUD. There seem to be a lot of know-it-alls destroying open source software these days. I'll no sooner use Wayland than systemd.