 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I think comparing Linux to AmigaOS running on the exact same device is a
>> reasonable comparison. They both have the same hardware to play with,
>> after all...
>
> But they don't have the same capabilities and features. X11 is built
> around networking and serving multiple users. So it's a flawed
> comparison to compare a GUI that is built around doing direct hardware
> calls to a specific chip set versus an application that is built around
> filing forms in triplicate (with the yellow going to finance and the
> pink to HR) asking for permission to invalidate a rectangle, and then
> upon receiving confirmation that it was cleared to do so, send further
> documents proposing what it intends to do with that section on the
> screen, requesting the hiring of draftsmen to draw lines, painters to
> paint sections of the rectangle, etc...
Question: Has anybody ever, in the history of X11, actually run the
display on a different machine to the one where the program is?
I realise that X11 *can* do this (hypothetically), but does anybody ever
use it? From what I've seen, everybody actually uses VNC instead.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I think comparing Linux to AmigaOS running on the exact same device is a
>> reasonable comparison. They both have the same hardware to play with,
>> after all...
>
> Except that Linux was not designed to run efficiently on an Amiga any
> more than AmigaOS was designed to run efficiently on a modern PC.
>
> You mentioned that AmigaOS takes advantage of the Amiga's display hardware
> for faster graphical operation. So does Linux on a modern PC.
My understanding is that X uses a device driver that is specific to the
display hardware it's trying to run on. I'm not sure why you couldn't
write such a driver that specifically targets the Amiga's video hardware.
(Or rather, someone *must* have done that to get X to work at all. What
I mean is, write a driver that takes advantage of the available hardware
acceleration...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 29/01/2014 22:32, Orchid Win7 v1 nous fit lire :
> Question: Has anybody ever, in the history of X11, actually run the
> display on a different machine to the one where the program is?
Yes. personally since 1990.
>
> I realise that X11 *can* do this (hypothetically), but does anybody ever
> use it? From what I've seen, everybody actually uses VNC instead.
VNC is just bullshit when compared to X11. The killer of bandwidth is
the lovely decorations & curves. X11 is damn effective to handle the
mouse and rectangular area/basic widget such as radio box. Canva (free
drawing area) is slow.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 21:32:34 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Question: Has anybody ever, in the history of X11, actually run the
> display on a different machine to the one where the program is?
>
> I realise that X11 *can* do this (hypothetically), but does anybody ever
> use it? From what I've seen, everybody actually uses VNC instead.
Yes, I use it fairly regularly here at home. For example, ssh'ing to
another local machine and running an application remotely. In fact, I
did it just last night, running YaST's QT interface remotely to update a
firewall config.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> I think comparing Linux to AmigaOS running on the exact same device is a
>>> reasonable comparison. They both have the same hardware to play with,
>>> after all...
>>
>> But they don't have the same capabilities and features. X11 is built
>> around networking and serving multiple users. So it's a flawed
>> comparison to compare a GUI that is built around doing direct hardware
>> calls to a specific chip set versus an application that is built around
>> filing forms in triplicate (with the yellow going to finance and the
>> pink to HR) asking for permission to invalidate a rectangle, and then
>> upon receiving confirmation that it was cleared to do so, send further
>> documents proposing what it intends to do with that section on the
>> screen, requesting the hiring of draftsmen to draw lines, painters to
>> paint sections of the rectangle, etc...
>
> Question: Has anybody ever, in the history of X11, actually run the
> display on a different machine to the one where the program is?
Me, and the rest of my team, every day for 10 of the last 15 years.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 29.01.2014 22:32, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
> Question: Has anybody ever, in the history of X11, actually run the
> display on a different machine to the one where the program is?
Yes. Me, for instance.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Question: Has anybody ever, in the history of X11, actually run the
> display on a different machine to the one where the program is?
>
> I realise that X11 *can* do this (hypothetically), but does anybody ever
> use it? From what I've seen, everybody actually uses VNC instead.
The whole computer system at our engineering department at university
did this. One central server. Fun times when an entire class was doing
the finite element modelling course. And the absolutely atrocious GUI on
most applications we used put most people off Unix/Linux for life.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> My understanding is that X uses a device driver that is specific to the
> display hardware it's trying to run on. I'm not sure why you couldn't
> write such a driver that specifically targets the Amiga's video hardware.
Someone probably could, but a different question is whether someone has.
(Also, while I know nothing about the X11 architecture, it's possible
that even with an optimized driver it might not be able to take full
advantage of a very unique display hardware, which the one in the Amiga
might be, because X11 is too generic of an architecture.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2014-1-24 10:23, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Also: Apparently the Raspberry Pi is _more powerful_ than the hardware
> that Mathematica was originally released for. (Apple Mac? Apple II??)
NeXT, wasn't it?
--
*\\* Anton Sherwood *\\* www.bendwavy.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25/02/2014 07:33 AM, Anton Sherwood wrote:
> On 2014-1-24 10:23, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> Also: Apparently the Raspberry Pi is _more powerful_ than the hardware
>> that Mathematica was originally released for. (Apple Mac? Apple II??)
>
> NeXT, wasn't it?
Yeah, you might be right about that...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
