On Sun, 2002-01-20 at 22:22, Jim Dawson wrote: > Personally, I'm not to optimistic that a viable replacment for X is > going to happen anytime soon. Sure, X has it's warts but it works well > enough for most applications that developing an alternative isn't too > high a priority. And besides, any alternative display system will need > to have an 'X' compatability layer to run existing software, which will > make it even slower than X displays.
If I understand correctly, one of the things that makes X use more memory and run slower is that it is a network application, and as such, must run all of its requests through the local loopback on your workstation (X is both a client-server protocol and software suite). This being the case, couldn't someone write a "localhost-only" version of X that emulates the networking protocols without actually doing anything through the loopback device, and only runs on a local workstation? This would provide backwards compatibility with all X software, but would remove the network code and functionality that takes memory, processing power, and resources that could be better used elsewhere. Just a thought. Maybe someone can rip a few holes in my theory to prove me wrong. Dave -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy, and good with ketchup.
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
