Re: Some perspective from the cheap seats...

On Friday 21 March 2003 21:46, Kendall Bennett wrote:
>
> Very good point. The downside of course is the VNC is a 'remote desktop'
> system much like PC Anywhere for Windows machines. You can't run a remote
> VNC application integrated 'seamlessly' into your desktop via VNC (or PC
> Anywhere). But it does solve the remote access problem in a different
> way, and it may well be that for most uses a VNC style approach is
> perfectly suitable. In the old days remote access was nice for network
> servers because you could run GUI tools from the remote machine, but
> these days with stuff like WebMin who needs to run server config stuff
> remotely via X? You can now do everything you need via a neat web
> interface that you can access from any machine.

I personally really don't like most web interfaces. Http and hence the web is 
designed as a request-reply system. It is not well suited to interactive 
application use, although the forms system is sufficient in many cases. For 
me most "normal" applications have a nice look and feel than web browsers do. 
Also I quite often use the remote capabilities of X, and only use VNC for win 
computers.

The things said above do not mean that I wouldn't like to have fast local 
graphics with optional eye-candy like transparency. I just want my X apps to 
function over the network too (except the occasional game). 

>
> > > first step IMHO is to simply implement a 2D direct rendering system to
> > > increase performance. Whether X needs to go or whether it can be
> > > reinvented to support 2D direct rendering is a different question.
> >
> > DirectFB + XDirectFB ?

easy accessible hardware accellerated 2D operations would be neat.

> I am not family with DirectFB + XDirectFB. I shall take a look ;-)

Regards,
Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Researcher
Mail: [email protected]
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net