Re: Move X definition to IETF?

Toplica Tanaskovic wrote:
> Dana ponedeljak 24. mart 2003. 19:13, [email protected] je napisao/la:
> 
>>The IETF, with only a few exceptions, does not standardize
>>API's; it generally only works on wire protocols.
>>				- Jim
>>
>>
>>>Sender: [email protected]
>>>From: Ed Warnicke <[email protected]>
>>>Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:23:38 -0500
>>>To: [email protected]
>>>Subject: [forum] Move X definition to IETF?
>>>-----
>>>There has been some comment in this forum about the
>>>need to split the definition of X ( which used to
>>>reside with X.org ) from the implementation of
>>>X ( XFree86.org ).  Might it not be a good idea to
>>>try to move the definition of X over to the IETF?
>>>
>>>X is, afterall, a network protocol.  The IETF is
>>>arguably the most successful standards body for
>>>the definition of network protocols in history.
>>>
>>>Also, the IETF is extremely open, which seems to
>>>be something that X.org lacked, and which folks
>>>are complaining about in XFree86.
>>
> 	It doesn't really mather whether it will or it won't be moved. I can see 
> IMHO, that here people are arguing about everything, and thats good, a lot of 
> posts -> a lot of ideas. However, I haven't seen any idea how to improve 
> speed. Speed is the very first thing which needs to be revised. I hate to see 
> on my KT400 mobo with R9000, window which apears with 0.5-1 sec delay, and 
> there is no disk I/O or something like that.
> 	From my end-user point of view, I think X is good but slow. Some people will 
> say but you have remote this ability, remote that... Face it guys, over 75% 
> of users doesn't even know of such possibility, of the 25% who know half of 
> them have no need of such a thing.
Network transparency is absolutly great thing. I use it in our firm 
and it saves lot of money. Eg. linux is multiuser system and how you 
use multiuse system without remote X or ssh login ?


			Dan