Slashdot Mirror


Remote Desktop Backend Merged into Wayland

New submitter Skrapion writes "One month ago, an independent developer submitted patches to the Wayland's Weston compositor which adds support for FreeRDP, an open-source remote desktop protocol. Now, after six revisions, the remote desktop code has been merged into the trunk. While remote desktop has been prototyped in Weston once before by Wayland developer Kristian Høgsberg, this is the first time Wayland/Weston has officially supported the feature. For a summary of why we can expect Wayland's remote desktop to surpass X.Org's network transparency, see Daniel Stone's excellent talk from Linux.conf.au."

6 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. Re:An important feature for me by jabuzz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The problem is that the current implementation is effectively VNC done using the RDP protocol. That is it is just sending the changed areas of the screen. What is needed is something more like x11rdp. That is an X11 server that rather than talking to hardware spits out RDP protocol instead. Draw a rectangle on the X11 screen and the corresponding RDP gets spat down the line to the client. It is much much faster than VNC which is a total dog over slow links, rather like X11 being a total dog on links that don't have really low latency.

  2. Re:Rootless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    stupid.

    RDP has worked better than any linux solution in practice.

  3. Unanswered questions... by Junta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does this allow per-application forwarding? (All sorts of people blasting that Microsoft can do it, not many people speaking to whether *this* specific implementation can).

    Does this allow remote applications to cleanly appear in things like notification areas? That was one problem I had with NX, even the rootless mode failed to properly incorporate that.

    Does Wayland+FreeRDP provide a more unified approach to audio+video being grouped together? That's a large gap in X, where audio is consider just completely unrelated to the remoting...

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  4. Re:That You, Fanboy? by CajunArson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You're misinterpreting... I was agreeing with you about X fanboys who always cry about "network transparency" when X hasn't been network transparent for years & years. Any modern X server is just shooting bitmaps over a network link in a less efficient manner than RDP.

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
  5. Re:Rootless? by rnturn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ``Because I use X forwarding all the damn time. Mind you only on the LAN.''

    I've used it on LANs. I've used it across my crummy IDSL link. And I've even used it on dial-up. Only when using very graphics intensive applications on dial-up did I find the performance awful (and, fortunately, I only needed to resort to dial-up during those rare times that the VPN access was down). Caveat: I'm not trying to play games via X11 connections which may be why it works well for me and so badly for the folks who are in favor of Wayland.

    I find it amusing that some people are touting how wonderful the implementation of RDP is on Windows 2008 server. I need to access remote UNIX systems, not Windows servers. Those of us that use UNIX (almost exclusively or as exclusively as I can pull off) don't want something that is useful only for Win2008 Server systems. How will an RDP plug-in for Wayland accommodate UNIX/Linux desktops connecting to UNIX/Linux servers? Oh... I guess the people running UNIX servers will have to install a non-native layer to allow the Wayland folks access. That's just nuts.

    (Personal opinion time: It seems there is a group of Linux developers who grew up developing for Windows and won't be happy until they've turned Linux into the Windows they would have liked to have seen. Too bad they never used UNIX/Linux as they were developing their programming skills.)

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  6. Re:Those who do not understand X11 by chris.alex.thomas · · Score: 3, Interesting

    wrong.

    all that needs to happen is enough of us to care less about your precious remote X functionality and you'll be forced to ditch it, support it yourself or program it yourself.

    so people mindlessly fleeing from X, might not even care about a feature they never used......ever