On 18/02/14 22:17, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote: > Scott Ferguson writes: > > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/2010-November/000097.html > > I have to check wheter the "seamless" X11 support in Snow Leopard is still > not so "seamless" as it was Panther (i.e. character rendering, sometimes > close to unreadable). Gotta check this evening.
I'm not sure Apple is an appropriate reference for Linux, but then also you've previously made the point the Linux is not POSIX and seem to find that a problem (GNU?). I don't see why Linux shouldn't lead instead of follow flawed models - but it's not my call. > > Anyway: > > "You're right, using X for remote applications is not a full answer. > I do think HTML5 is a better answer than most people acknowledge" That's not my statement - I only referenced that post because it mentions some of the failings of X. I have no opinion on the HTML comment. > > I am not sure I would use such an architecture for a local > application, at least today. > > That would mean to use some sort of application server, the > application within the application server and then a browser to run > the app. > > Very heavy for the machine. Not necessarily. e.g. https://apps.rutgers.edu/novnc/ http://www.cybelesoft.com/thinrdp/ Try x2go http://wiki.x2go.org/ On the few occasions that I need more than a remote terminal I find x2go has more useful features and uses less resources than x forwarding and the vnc variants. If I can use it on a Thinkpad T22 to display a remote KDE workstation it can't be that "heavy". It's in the Debian repositories. > > I know that HTML 5 can do wonderful things. I am working on a program > thad does HEAVY use of html 5 and javascript, a program meant to run > on either the desktop or a tablet. I had to beef mine to 8G mostly > because of the JavaScript/HTML5 part of the architecture I'm definitely not an expert on javascript[*1] - but 8GiB RAM requirement seems like it could use some optimising. Have you made use of HTML5s full local capabilities? [*1]There seem to be a lot of "apps" that do a lot of heavy remote work in javascript but don't require anywhere near that amount of resources. The gmail interface is also very javascript heavy but runs fine, for those that like it, on mobile devices. > > Then what? two output modules for the same program? Huh? > Are you kidding or > are you drunk? I'd have to ask you the same question. You seem to be extrapolating from imagination and then conflating it with something I wrote. > > Could things improve? Probably. If you design an environment that has > an HTML5 rendering engine as its graphic engine (acting also as a > server for remote rendering requests) and is some sort of javascript > machine. See the earlier reference to novnc (and . > > By the way, the application I am working on relies on a certain > implementation (webkit) and does not run on, say, firefox. Then you don't ask anyone else why some applications don't respect standards. :) > > Wonderful, HTML 5 succeeded in turning the clock about 20 years back > when IE3 understood (non standard) tags that Netscape did not (and > vice versa). I'm not sure what you're trying to say there... HTML4 is a standard, but not all browsers support all the tags recognised by the various browsers. HTML5 has only recently (4th Feb) become a W3C *Candidate* Recommendation Standard, I expect it'll take a while from when the developers of various browsers were trying out proposed capabilities for their camps model, and implementing those of others (trying to nail smoke to the wall). Expect Opera and IE to continue to bork valid HTML, expect others to continue to support non-standard tags - expect code that'll render on all browsers equally to require work. Expect "experts" to continue to *not* recommend we write *only* valid HTML (sigh). > > > https://github.com/kempj/remote-wayland > > Could you explain a bit more? BTW, AFAIK X11 does move bitmaps around > the net only when it has no other mean to request some kind of drawing. Why not ask the relevant developers? I don't presume to know their thinking and fail to understand why you'd think otherwise (but I'm a bit thick). Let's not lose sight of the original point - *KDE is dropping KDM in future releases*. Wayland is a topical digression that leads to wooly thinking don't you think? So I don't know what it makes this tangent. Kind regards > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5304280f.1090...@gmail.com
