No it won't. That's the beauty of the protocol, and my whole point! Windows terminal server/citrix and VNC have one thing in common: they rely on the display server to render video data, before sending it to the client. In reality, X ends up doing this sometimes as well, but still consistently outperforms any other system I've used (and in 20 years, I've used many). I won't even venture into the details of portability and heterogenious(sp) networking.
If the overhead is too much for your particular application, use MIT-SHM, DGA, or any of the other high performance access methods.
Yeah, that's what I'm doing right now. But, that creates a dependence on the X server (there's one possible point of failure), and adds some complexity (must modify each VNC resource file to allow CTRL-ALT-ESC via F8, must manage access control to the X server, etc).
Also, the whole notion implies that the VMware sessions are interactive; indeed, there are some critial error messages you can't stop from popping up and halting the VM (starting with RTC disconnected, disks must be scrubbed, etc).
Along the same lines, it would also be nice if the VMware / Plex86 sessions could obey certain signals (HUP, QUIT, SUSPEND, etc).
Plex86's success makes me happy, because now I can implement these ideas myself.:)
Presumably they wouldn't, too much (some believe that this possibility eases transition away from Windows completely). On the other hand, they sure as hell wouldn't want Wine to start working well.
Sorry; I was implying that since the source code is available, you can modify it / pay someone to modify it to make it behave as you wish.
You have to admit that the concept of client/server in X at least SEEMS backwards.
Hrm.. I don't understand what you mean. If you mean that it shouldn't be done this way, and some other way instead, I'm all ears.:)
How often do you really remote?
As I mentioned, I am 'remote' right now. My big computer is very powerful (Ultra 5/440, 512mb ram) and my client (i486 laptop with a nice screen, 16mb ram) is too slow to run Netscape, xmms, star office, etc. Since I can't lie on my bed and read slashdot with my big box, this works out well for me.
Is the occasional 1000% improvement in performance worth losing ~10% for everything else?
Where did you get those numbers? With SDL/X, many games and applications run faster under X than they do under vgalib, windows, etc. The beauty is that if you need to, all applications which do not write directly to hardware only can be extended over the network.
I don't think so, but
someone seems to disagree and think that notion is flamebait.
I don't think you're trying to flame, I just think you're out of sync with reality.:)
Perhaps I crossed the line by implying that X should be thrown away. Maybe I was a bit off
on that. Perhaps it is better to say that I don't think it should be the primary graphical system for an OS.
No worries. Just a friendly conversation.:)
I still don't buy it.. but the beauty of the system is - if you don't like it, change it!
So for things that CAN run under Wine, it's a better solution. They can show up seamlessly on your X desktop as normal X windows, and be launched by
the kernel misc binary support straight from the command line or a gnome double-click.
Anyone remember OS/2's special video driver for WinOS2 that made windows programs appear to be part of the OS/2 presentation manager ("seamless mode")? It sure would be nice to see something like this for Plex86 - a windows display driver that relays messages to an X-aware process that create and manage separate X windows for each Windows application.
When you think about it though, why would m$ be against this kind of thing? It's just another 'hardware' platform for them to sell windows licenses, and software. For them, it's better this than more big application packages for 'nix.:)
Does anyone know how portable Plex86 is? Is it likely that it could be ported to Sparc, in order to multiplex sparc hardware (for running multiple solaris/linux images)?
One thing that VMware doesn't support that I'm holding my breath for is a detachable interface, such that you could run the guest O/S without a display/input device. Ideally, it would be network centric, allowing you to connect to your hosts over IP/unix sockets.
This would be great for running servers without the need of a display server on the host, and make unattended startups / shutdowns of guest VM's much simpler.
Well, you do have a point. But, the problem is that emulating a PC is a lot easier than emulating Windows. And, Microsoft can outdate whatever we make in months.. often weeks (with service packs), such that we'd always be playing catchup.
The nice thing about letting real windows run in a VM, is that it'll always run perfectly (albeit a little slower, but VMware is pretty quick). PC hardware tends to change much slower than Windows code.:)
Here is further proof that X sucks. It seems to me that it is frequently the impossible obstacle hindering the capabilities of almost every UN*X OS. I'd
(conservatively) wager that its back asswards client/server model is actually useful 5% of the time, if that much.
I'm using this 'back asswards' client/server model right now. To the contrary, I find it to be a very important tool for proper system administration. When I am remote, the ability to seamlessly start an xterm, or a graphical firewall management console over ssh is simply invaluable.
For those that need remote displays, LET THEM USE VNC.
Huh? What if I have an incredibly fast framebuffer on my SGI, and an incredibly powerful I/O and CPU set on my e4500? VNC doesn't help me much there.
Let the rest of us move forward. I despise configuring X to do anything reasonable, and if it
doesn't work at all, it's saner to simply break out the installation CD and try the install again than it is to try putting in monitor/video configuration by hand.
Then use Windows. Seriously. Stop complaining. The beauty of this system is that you can make it do whatever you want. If you don't like the way it works, then write something new. I, for one, love X.
Yep. I've got a fairly large Intel server (4x700mhz, 2gb ram, 10 spindle array) running Linux 2.2, hosting about 18 different virtual machines, under VMware. It's rock solid; seriously, many of the VM sessions have uptimes exceeding 200 days. Performance isn't too bad either, since most of the servers idle 90% of the time.
The nice thing is that each of these boxen get the advantage of having somewhat fault-tolerant hardware. The memory in the host is ECC, there are 3 power supplies, redundant disks, hot-plug PCI, etc., that if implemented in each of the 18 separate servers, would cost an order of magnitude more. In effect, the incremental cost of adding a fault-tolerant server is basically the cost of the ram.. and a little cpu.
Of course, if the host goes down, it means that you'd better get it up damned fast.:)
My system usually sits with a load average around 0.50 to 1.50, and the servers (some NT, some Linux, and a solaris x86) are responsive enough, that most people don't even know they're virtual.
I'd recommend giving this a shot to anyone who needs a lot of hosts (for security purposes), where each host is only mildly CPU or I/O intensive.
VMware display drivers and X servers are can only run at the number of colors supported by the host X server. Otherwise, you'd need to dither (for higher color depths), or the opposite (for lower colors depths; is there a term for this?). That adds a performance hit.:/
If the X server could change color depths on the fly, VMware could presumable support that feature.
I kinda wrote that wrong - getting "aroused" at a picture of your own kid is pretty outrageous, something someone might want to seek professional help
for...
Agreed. But is it something you should be imprisoned for? That is, logically, the next step.
Anyway, you're probably right on target there. The funny thing is that most normal adults can be aroused by anything - a picture doesn't have to depict
nudity to create arousal (actually, I find swimsuit/lingerie imagery to be more arousing than straight nudity). Do such pictures suddenly become
pornography - or are they only pornographic to me - and who decides?
Good question... even better, now that the mere possession of a computer generated picture that someone finds offensive could land your ass in prison.:)
BTW - what I meant about being "taken" - I kinda meant in the general sense - I guess the correct word would have been "creation" - but even that
doesn't work right with today's technology.
Oh - yeah, I know. I just wanted to exaggerate the distinction between being punished for hurting someone, and being punished for thinking something. Basically a rhetorical "me too.";)
IMO, Microsoft doesn't know anything about security, but Netscape doesn't know anything about writing good code.
I think that's what it really comes down to. Virtually all of Netscape's products are simply horrible. I've worked extensively with their directory, messaging and application servers, and have some experience with the others. At the end of the day, I wouldn't trust a one in my own enterprise.
When does having a naked picture of your kid become child pronography - at the time of the taking of
the picture, or the when it creates arousal? The law says the former.
Now it says the latter. Pictures don't have to be "taken" anymore, to become illegal. They merely need to cause arousal.
Slashdot Mirror
No it won't. That's the beauty of the protocol, and my whole point! Windows terminal server/citrix and VNC have one thing in common: they rely on the display server to render video data, before sending it to the client. In reality, X ends up doing this sometimes as well, but still consistently outperforms any other system I've used (and in 20 years, I've used many). I won't even venture into the details of portability and heterogenious(sp) networking.
If the overhead is too much for your particular application, use MIT-SHM, DGA, or any of the other high performance access methods.
--
All men are great
before declaring war
Yeah, that's what I'm doing right now. But, that creates a dependence on the X server (there's one possible point of failure), and adds some complexity (must modify each VNC resource file to allow CTRL-ALT-ESC via F8, must manage access control to the X server, etc).
Also, the whole notion implies that the VMware sessions are interactive; indeed, there are some critial error messages you can't stop from popping up and halting the VM (starting with RTC disconnected, disks must be scrubbed, etc).
Along the same lines, it would also be nice if the VMware / Plex86 sessions could obey certain signals (HUP, QUIT, SUSPEND, etc).
Plex86's success makes me happy, because now I can implement these ideas myself. :)
--
All men are great
before declaring war
Not that that's ever stopped them before.
--
All men are great
before declaring war
--
All men are great
before declaring war
Sorry; I was implying that since the source code is available, you can modify it / pay someone to modify it to make it behave as you wish.
You have to admit that the concept of client/server in X at least SEEMS backwards.
Hrm.. I don't understand what you mean. If you mean that it shouldn't be done this way, and some other way instead, I'm all ears. :)
How often do you really remote?
As I mentioned, I am 'remote' right now. My big computer is very powerful (Ultra 5/440, 512mb ram) and my client (i486 laptop with a nice screen, 16mb ram) is too slow to run Netscape, xmms, star office, etc. Since I can't lie on my bed and read slashdot with my big box, this works out well for me.
Is the occasional 1000% improvement in performance worth losing ~10% for everything else?
Where did you get those numbers? With SDL/X, many games and applications run faster under X than they do under vgalib, windows, etc. The beauty is that if you need to, all applications which do not write directly to hardware only can be extended over the network.
I don't think so, but someone seems to disagree and think that notion is flamebait.
I don't think you're trying to flame, I just think you're out of sync with reality. :)
Perhaps I crossed the line by implying that X should be thrown away. Maybe I was a bit off on that. Perhaps it is better to say that I don't think it should be the primary graphical system for an OS.
No worries. Just a friendly conversation. :)
I still don't buy it.. but the beauty of the system is - if you don't like it, change it!
--
All men are great
before declaring war
Anyone remember OS/2's special video driver for WinOS2 that made windows programs appear to be part of the OS/2 presentation manager ("seamless mode")? It sure would be nice to see something like this for Plex86 - a windows display driver that relays messages to an X-aware process that create and manage separate X windows for each Windows application.
--
All men are great
before declaring war
--
All men are great
before declaring war
--
All men are great
before declaring war
--
All men are great
before declaring war
Or, has anyone heard of anything in the works?
--
All men are great
before declaring war
This would be great for running servers without the need of a display server on the host, and make unattended startups / shutdowns of guest VM's much simpler.
--
All men are great
before declaring war
--
All men are great
before declaring war
The nice thing about letting real windows run in a VM, is that it'll always run perfectly (albeit a little slower, but VMware is pretty quick). PC hardware tends to change much slower than Windows code. :)
--
All men are great
before declaring war
Here is further proof that X sucks. It seems to me that it is frequently the impossible obstacle hindering the capabilities of almost every UN*X OS. I'd (conservatively) wager that its back asswards client/server model is actually useful 5% of the time, if that much.
I'm using this 'back asswards' client/server model right now. To the contrary, I find it to be a very important tool for proper system administration. When I am remote, the ability to seamlessly start an xterm, or a graphical firewall management console over ssh is simply invaluable.
For those that need remote displays, LET THEM USE VNC.
Huh? What if I have an incredibly fast framebuffer on my SGI, and an incredibly powerful I/O and CPU set on my e4500? VNC doesn't help me much there.
Let the rest of us move forward. I despise configuring X to do anything reasonable, and if it doesn't work at all, it's saner to simply break out the installation CD and try the install again than it is to try putting in monitor/video configuration by hand.
Then use Windows. Seriously. Stop complaining. The beauty of this system is that you can make it do whatever you want. If you don't like the way it works, then write something new. I, for one, love X.
--
All men are great
before declaring war
The nice thing is that each of these boxen get the advantage of having somewhat fault-tolerant hardware. The memory in the host is ECC, there are 3 power supplies, redundant disks, hot-plug PCI, etc., that if implemented in each of the 18 separate servers, would cost an order of magnitude more. In effect, the incremental cost of adding a fault-tolerant server is basically the cost of the ram.. and a little cpu.
Of course, if the host goes down, it means that you'd better get it up damned fast. :)
My system usually sits with a load average around 0.50 to 1.50, and the servers (some NT, some Linux, and a solaris x86) are responsive enough, that most people don't even know they're virtual.
I'd recommend giving this a shot to anyone who needs a lot of hosts (for security purposes), where each host is only mildly CPU or I/O intensive.
--
All men are great
before declaring war
If the X server could change color depths on the fly, VMware could presumable support that feature.
--
All men are great
before declaring war
Agreed. But is it something you should be imprisoned for? That is, logically, the next step.
Anyway, you're probably right on target there. The funny thing is that most normal adults can be aroused by anything - a picture doesn't have to depict nudity to create arousal (actually, I find swimsuit/lingerie imagery to be more arousing than straight nudity). Do such pictures suddenly become pornography - or are they only pornographic to me - and who decides?
Good question... even better, now that the mere possession of a computer generated picture that someone finds offensive could land your ass in prison. :)
BTW - what I meant about being "taken" - I kinda meant in the general sense - I guess the correct word would have been "creation" - but even that doesn't work right with today's technology.
Oh - yeah, I know. I just wanted to exaggerate the distinction between being punished for hurting someone, and being punished for thinking something. Basically a rhetorical "me too." ;)
--
All men are great
before declaring war
I think that's what it really comes down to. Virtually all of Netscape's products are simply horrible. I've worked extensively with their directory, messaging and application servers, and have some experience with the others. At the end of the day, I wouldn't trust a one in my own enterprise.
--
All men are great
before declaring war
--
All men are great
before declaring war
Now it says the latter. Pictures don't have to be "taken" anymore, to become illegal. They merely need to cause arousal.
--
All men are great
before declaring war
I suppose I'm just feeding the trolls. Ahem.
--
All men are great
before declaring war
--
All men are great
before declaring war
Why not use these development resources to further the ease-of-use aspect of an existing O/S?
--
All men are great
before declaring war
Cute.
--
All men are great
before declaring war