Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 22 Apr 2020 07:00:28 +0100
From:      Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org>
To:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Wayland on FreeBSD
Message-ID:  <20200422070028.30dd2fb16ccae9b6d9cde901@sohara.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
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 22:32:43 -0400
"Kevin P. Neal" <kpn@neutralgood.org> wrote:

> 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.

	To a desktop not to an application.

> 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?

	I use it often enough that I'd miss it, the authors of ssh found it
useful enough to add ssh -X and ssh -Y to support using it. So yes I think 
there's common use of it. It seems there's a waypipe that can achieve this
for Wayland, one day if tuits appear I might get round to trying it.

> Oh, and is XWayland still a thing? Or the other way around?

	Yes to both, Xwayland is still a thing and run by default and you
can run Wayland as an X client.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org>



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200422070028.30dd2fb16ccae9b6d9cde901>