Fixing in a proxy things that can/should be fixed elsewhere is a bandaid. Bandaids are useful, however; that doesn't mean we shouldn't fix the X and/or how the X protocol is being used.
I don't see why, by saying that NX is good, I necessa- rily would imply that X must not be improved. X *must* be improved and I think that the work taking place to improve it is *really* welcome. I don't think I can be misinterpreted on this. Infact only by improving X we'll be able to achieve the level of performance that we expect from NX. On the other hand I don't see an agent/proxy system as a bandaid and I really think that X alone will never be able to match the NX performance. I think that X needs an infrastructure and specific strategies to multiplex traffic and provide additional functionalities that only a proxy system is able to offer. The "one X size fits all" approach can't work in this case. Even NFS can work across the Internet, but if you want to mount a Terabyte of storage and run Oracle on it across a modem you would better use a distributed, fault tolerant, caching file-system or let a system preserving NFS semantic do that in seam- less and transparent way.
We are doing that system and I think that the proof of the pudding is in eating. You are still not saying why you don't want to try this stuff. I would really appreciate your opinion ;-). After all we are working at solving the same problems from a different perspec- tive.
/Gian Filippo.
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
