Offtopic (was: GGI, EGCS/PGCC, Kernel source)
24 Feb 1998 10:48:21 +0100 (Alan Cox) writes:

> You do. It is far cheaper to put GLX in the server.

If I may digress, I think we want even more stuff to be handled by X.
I'd really like to set up our PCs to dual-boot as Linux X terminals for
those who needs/wants to use our Linux server more efficently (Yeah,
run a Windows X server, right.)

However, it seems such a waste to have these really nice PIIs with gobs
of memory and Millenium IIs and the kitchen sink, just sitting there
drawing lines and displaying bitmaps.

There should probably be X extensions to handle image transformations
(like scaling, dithering, perhaps even direct jpeg/png support?,
filtering, antialiasing), 3d (GLX, right, we got that), mpeg1/mpeg2
playback, as well as support for remote devices (UDB, audio of various
formats, including MIDI, local removable storage [perhaps one could
provide a virtual device file in the users home directory - devfs
anyone?]). And local screensavers - I've experienced screensavers that
did their best to suck CPU and saturate the network at the same time.

Ideally, we should minimize processing on the server (that is, in the X
client programs) and network bandwidth requirements, at the cost of
increased local (X server) processing. If some extension is
unsupported, I guess the client could query the server and fallback to
local processing.

One might argue that all of this isn't X, however I think it makes sense
to at least bundle these protocols/services together, have a standard
authorization scheme, for instance. X does a nice jobs of abstracting
raster displays, keyboards and mice over a network, but we need to

a) access a lot more devices, and
b) utilize local processing power

Well, I *told* you it was a digression.


If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to