On Friday 21 March 2003 21:46, Kendall Bennett wrote: > > Very good point. The downside of course is the VNC is a 'remote desktop' > system much like PC Anywhere for Windows machines. You can't run a remote > VNC application integrated 'seamlessly' into your desktop via VNC (or PC > Anywhere). But it does solve the remote access problem in a different > way, and it may well be that for most uses a VNC style approach is > perfectly suitable. In the old days remote access was nice for network > servers because you could run GUI tools from the remote machine, but > these days with stuff like WebMin who needs to run server config stuff > remotely via X? You can now do everything you need via a neat web > interface that you can access from any machine. I personally really don't like most web interfaces. Http and hence the web is designed as a request-reply system. It is not well suited to interactive application use, although the forms system is sufficient in many cases. For me most "normal" applications have a nice look and feel than web browsers do. Also I quite often use the remote capabilities of X, and only use VNC for win computers. The things said above do not mean that I wouldn't like to have fast local graphics with optional eye-candy like transparency. I just want my X apps to function over the network too (except the occasional game). > > > > first step IMHO is to simply implement a 2D direct rendering system to > > > increase performance. Whether X needs to go or whether it can be > > > reinvented to support 2D direct rendering is a different question. > > > > DirectFB + XDirectFB ? easy accessible hardware accellerated 2D operations would be neat. > I am not family with DirectFB + XDirectFB. I shall take a look ;-) Regards, Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Researcher Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net