Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 23:26:56 -0400 From: Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com> To: "Kevin P. Neal" <kpn@neutralgood.org> Cc: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de>, FreeBSD <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>, "\@lbutlr" <kremels@kreme.com> Subject: Re: Wayland on FreeBSD Message-ID: <24223.47488.85521.628719@jerusalem.litteratus.org> In-Reply-To: <20200422023243.GA81187@neutralgood.org> References: <CAFYkXjmfyLZAi1HZe-RE3wLxa6GRNP6GkmtZG-4T2puRDOz0JA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGLDxTX5EeL3YDUJocdOM03sRzUDi3ed9cKuNH99DieZbrhGHg@mail.gmail.com> <5058973.kMyvyFPq5o@amos> <CAB4989B-95E7-43B6-B338-B9524B9D9FDA@kreme.com> <20200421150741.28dd6309.freebsd@edvax.de> <24223.11679.688616.192643@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <20200422023243.GA81187@neutralgood.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kevin P. Neal writes: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 01:30:07PM -0400, Robert Huff wrote: > > Also: if I understand the conversation, Wayland works OK when > > client and server are the same machine, but not over a network? > > I thought I read that Wayland considers access over the network to be a > solved problem without having to build it into the lowest levels of the > graphics stack. Remote Desktop, VNC, etc., all give network access. What > you miss is intermingling of windows from several machines. But is that > such a common use case that it should be designed for from the start? Define "common". :-) I can bear witness to having done so (using X) multiple times over a 30 year career. In no case was it the only possible solution; in several it was clearly superior to the alternatives. That various major players implement and actively maintain some version suggests the concept is valuable. Anyone else? Respectfully, Robert Huff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?24223.47488.85521.628719>