# Can you use Unix without X11 forward?



## Spartrekus (Jan 25, 2019)

Hello,

Soon or later, the desktop will change greatly. Wayland offers much better desktop in general.

Can you use Unix without X11 forward?



See here the faq of wayland:



> *What is wrong with X?*
> The problem with X is that... it's X. When you're an X server there's a tremendous amount of functionality that you must support to claim to speak the X protocol, yet nobody will ever use this. For example, core fonts; this is the original font model that was how your got text on the screen for the many first years of X11. This includes code tables, glyph rasterization and caching, XLFDs (seriously, XLFDs!). Also, the entire core rendering API that lets you draw stippled lines, polygons, wide arcs and many more state-of-the-1980s style graphics primitives. For many things we've been able to keep the X.org server modern by adding extensions such as XRandR, XRender and COMPOSITE and to some extent phase out less useful extensions. But we can't ever get rid of the core rendering API and much other complexity that is rarely used in a modern desktop. With Wayland we can move the X server and all its legacy technology to an optional code path.





> *Is Wayland network transparent / does it support remote rendering?*
> No, that is outside the scope of Wayland. To support remote rendering you need to define a rendering API, which is something I've been very careful to avoid doing. The reason Wayland is so simple and feasible at all is that I'm sidestepping this big task and pushing it to the clients. It's an interesting challenge, a very big task and it's hard to get right, but essentially orthogonal to what Wayland tries to achieve.



You will need soon to adapt your way of working, likely use more VNC, Teamviewer, tightvnc,... and any other solutions. libx11 will no longer allow regular things. It is largely accepted that it is prehistory and primitive to use X11 library(/-es) today (example: here sinus/cosinus/.... plot on x11, xclock, xterm, xedit, xcalendar, x* ... ).

Can you use Unix without X11 forward?

With best regards


----------



## SirDice (Jan 25, 2019)

Spartrekus said:


> Can you use Unix without X11 forward?


One has nothing to do with the other. UNIX is an OS, X11 is a GUI application framework (a set of protocols actually) running on top of that OS.


----------



## Spartrekus (Jan 25, 2019)

SirDice said:


> One has nothing to do with the other. UNIX is an OS, X11 is a GUI application framework (a set of protocols actually) running on top of that OS.



Up to you to keep using Unix or not for X reasons and lack of features/functionalities.


----------



## SirDice (Jan 25, 2019)

Remote management of UNIX and UNIX-like systems is typically done using ssh(1). None of my servers have any X11 related stuff on them. Why would I run a fully blown graphical desktop on a *server*?


----------



## Spartrekus (Jan 25, 2019)

SirDice said:


> Remote management of UNIX and UNIX-like systems is typically done using ssh(1). None of my servers have any X11 related stuff on them. Why would I run a fully blown graphical desktop on a *server*?



I agree with you. FreeBSD is not dedicated for Desktops, however many core components are built to be so.
KDE, Gnome, ... can be readily installed and being operational.

Common habits are however to consider BSD as a Linux desktop machine, which is not actually.


----------



## SirDice (Jan 25, 2019)

Spartrekus said:


> however many core components are built to be so.


No, they are not. What do you consider to be "core components"? _Nothing_ installed from ports/packages is a "core" component. All core components are part of the base OS and the _nothing_ in the base OS depends on or uses X11.


----------



## Spartrekus (Jan 25, 2019)

SirDice said:


> No, they are not. What do you consider to be "core components"?



hmm hmm 

https://forums.freebsd.org/categories/desktop-usage.29/


----------



## SirDice (Jan 25, 2019)

Ports/packages are _third party_ software, which means they can _never_ be core components. So, the question remains, what do you consider to be "core components"?


----------



## Beastie7 (Jan 25, 2019)

If you really need GUI for some application on a server - a localhost web interface would fit the bill. Otherwise SSH/tmux is all you need.

There's no need to X11 on a server.


----------



## BSD User (Feb 2, 2019)

Yes. Even Microsoft has an option to install and run their server without GUI.


----------



## kpedersen (Feb 2, 2019)

To be honest, I have already had a tinfoil hat moment and migrated some of my personal projects to use software rendering via vgl without X11, GLX or an accelerated GPU. I am quite confident that if it comes down to it, I can do without a stable graphics API.

If X11 does disappear, we will end up with an API that changes every year (like networking tools / systemd on Linux). So long as I can get a decent terminal, I actually could do without X11 and whatever replaces Wayland.

So I say... bring on the terrible decisions of the future! XD


----------



## Spartrekus (Feb 3, 2019)

BSD User said:


> Yes. Even Microsoft has an option to install and run their server without GUI.


What are the possible reasons for such a big change?



kpedersen said:


> To be honest, I have already had a tinfoil hat moment and migrated some of my personal projects to use software rendering via vgl without X11, GLX or an accelerated GPU. I am quite confident that if it comes down to it, I can do without a stable graphics API.
> 
> If X11 does disappear, we will end up with an API that changes every year (like networking tools / systemd on Linux). So long as I can get a decent terminal, I actually could do without X11 and whatever replaces Wayland.
> 
> So I say... bring on the terrible decisions of the future! XD


maybe give a try to GRX, which may run as well on DOS.
When all graphical libraries are replaced, DOS will still exist on FreeDOS or Dosbox.


			GRX graphics library
		









						GitHub - spartrekus/Fast-GRX-graphics-library-for-X11: GRX PI, Fast GRX graphics library for X11 (ideal for GCC, Raspberry PI and port to FreeDOS !!)
					

GRX PI, Fast GRX graphics library for X11 (ideal for GCC, Raspberry PI and port to FreeDOS !!) - GitHub - spartrekus/Fast-GRX-graphics-library-for-X11: GRX PI, Fast GRX graphics library for X11 (id...




					github.com
				




It is the first time that I read this. This is not normal. Usually people consider it as good that X11 disappears. 





> "It must disappear because it is old."


----------



## Crivens (Feb 3, 2019)

There are two types of fools. One says "this is old and therefore good" and the other says "this is new and therefore better".



> "It must disappear because it is old."


You mean like the pyramids? Or even 1E9 years old stuff like _sex_?


----------



## Spartrekus (Feb 3, 2019)

Make a poll - maybe ...


----------



## scottro (Feb 3, 2019)

(Video from How I Met Your Mother and Barney's rule of new is always better)


----------



## aragats (Feb 3, 2019)

BSD User said:


> Yes. Even Microsoft has an option to install and run their server without GUI.





Spartrekus said:


> What are the possible reasons for such a big change?


It's not something new, every version of MS Windows can be installed headlessly. Server versions support serial port access. I used to install and configure Server 2012, and believe that earlier versions had such capability as well.


Spartrekus said:


> When all graphical libraries are replaced, DOS will still exist on FreeDOS or Dosbox.


DOS requires BIOS, all new computers have UEFI, it was discussed in another thread. So, it still exist but useless in this aspect.

Regarding the X11 forwarding: it's useful for simple GUI applications only, in most cases I needed it, it was absolutely useless if not on the same LAN, the latency makes complex GUIs unusable. So, that's a good feature, but for those *rare* cases I need remote GUI, I can use vnc/rdp.


----------



## hruodr (Feb 3, 2019)

Would be this the end of X terminals (that run without demanding much resources)?


----------



## Spartrekus (Feb 3, 2019)

aragats said:


> It's not something new, every version of MS Windows can be installed headlessly. Server versions support serial port access. I used to install and configure Server 2012, and believe that earlier versions had such capability as well.
> 
> DOS requires BIOS, all new computers have UEFI, it was discussed in another thread. So, it still exist but useless in this aspect.
> 
> Regarding the X11 forwarding: it's useful for simple GUI applications only, in most cases I needed it, it was absolutely useless if not on the same LAN, the latency makes complex GUIs unusable. So, that's a good feature, but for those *rare* cases I need remote GUI, I can use vnc/rdp.



Thank you for your post and giving feedbacks about X11 forward.

Today, there are probably some users using X forward. Poll may give some information, maybe.

The latency comes from the library spaghettis.

A good way to test the fact is by self compiling xmessage (or alternatives) and to try with ssh X forward.
More importantly. the fact of using x11 library only: xedit, xeyes, xfig, xmessage "hello world" ... work _*extremely*_ fast over 5'000-10'000 km distance over ssh. This is ok for the classical X11 utilities and all software that are using X11 only.

what do you use then to see X11 applications ?


teamviewer
vnc
...


----------



## aragats (Feb 3, 2019)

Spartrekus said:


> what do you use then to see X11 applications ?
> • teamviewer
> • vnc


Well, teamviewer is not native for UNIX-like OSs, I use it only to access Windows machines.
Vnc is the easiest. To access X servers I use net/x11vnc, if they are behind NAT/firewall I use ssh tunnels.
By the way, the official teamviewer works fine in wine as a client (haven't tried as server).


----------



## Spartrekus (Feb 3, 2019)

aragats said:


> Well, teamviewer is not native for UNIX-like OSs, I use it only to access Windows machines.
> Vnc is the easiest. To access X servers I use net/x11vnc, if they are behind NAT/firewall I use ssh tunnels.
> By the way, the official teamviewer works fine in wine as a client (haven't tried as server).



Aren't you worried about the necessity of higher hardware perfs to be using it?


----------



## aragats (Feb 3, 2019)

Spartrekus said:


> Aren't you worried about the necessity of higher hardware perfs to be using it?


No, I don't since we're limited by the network performance which is on a par with, let's say, a simplest framebuffer. In other words, your accelerated graphics is not gonna help you in such cases anyway.


----------



## rigoletto@ (Feb 3, 2019)

Wayland, *by design*, doesn't support 'Color Management', leave alone ICC profiles (apparently Wayland developers don't know what 'Color' is). If you wanna have any kind of color management in Wayland, you will need to embed and manage that separated in every single program.

A desktop without 'Color Management' is useless for anything remotely serious. I am sure they can add it later, but I am also sure it will be a _hack_. "Great design" from something that is advertised as the new morden, cool and hot thing for Linux desktops.

Well Xorg, with its err... 35 years(?), at least have some arcane but functional color management.

So, in short, Wayland is a joke.


----------



## hruodr (Feb 3, 2019)

SirDice said:


> X11 is a GUI application framework (a set of protocols actually) running on top of that OS.



I think, its more protocols than GUI application framework.

I have in my desktop, where the X server runs, the file .xserverrc (since a while necessary) with:


```
# cat .xserverrc
exec Xorg -listen tcp
```

And I type there something like `xhost +`. Then connect my laptop with a cross over cable to the desktop, make the Tcp/IP connection and call from there for example  `env DISPLAY IP-of-Desktop:0.0 xterm`, then I have in my Desktop windows from the Desktop and from the Laptop. I do continuously such things: *THAT* is the very X11, and not just a GUI.


----------



## aragats (Feb 3, 2019)

hruodr said:


> *THAT* is the very X11, and not just a GUI


That's fine, but what you need X11 for if not for GUI applications?


----------



## hruodr (Feb 3, 2019)

For having only one terminal displaying windows for controlling many devices.

It is necessary because one cannot sit on many chairs at the same time.

It is also practical to have a unified display, you do copy and paste in the different windows.

That was the original idea of X, and not to do just a GUI.

And one need a standard protocol, it can be something different from X, but it must be something and X is something.


----------



## aragats (Feb 3, 2019)

hruodr said:


> For having only one terminal displaying windows for controlling many devices


This implies that all those devices run GUI applications. X11's purposes were clear and reasonable at earlier times.
Nowadays such approach is not practical. Overwhelming majority of operators/devices use SSH for command line control and web-based interfaces for graphical. Those are _de facto_ industrial standards, and there are many reasons for that.


----------



## hruodr (Feb 3, 2019)

aragats said:


> Nowadays such approach is not practical.



Then every modern GUI application must have an embedded web server and firefox / chrome is the new widget for everything.

Lightweight? Practical?


----------



## shkhln (Feb 3, 2019)

Web is closer to original X in intent than something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT-SHM. That is, web allows drawing UI with vector graphics (yes, rather indirectly through html/css) in a dpi-independent way with user fonts on a remote machine. With modern X in practice you are mostly passing bitmaps for rendering, original widgets are nowhere to be seen.


----------



## aragats (Feb 4, 2019)

I think, the vote should be rephrased differently:
_Do you need to run GUI application on remote computers frequently?_
 or:
_How frequently do you need to run GUI applications on remote machines?
• Every day
• Once a week
• Once a month
• Never_


----------



## Spartrekus (Feb 4, 2019)

For a custom installation, Xorg can be installed and running on 140-300 Mb only max.



rigoletto@ said:


> Wayland, *by design*, doesn't support 'Color Management', leave alone ICC profiles (apparently Wayland developers don't know what 'Color' is). If you wanna have any kind of color management in Wayland, you will need to embed and manage that separated in every single program.
> 
> A desktop without 'Color Management' is useless for anything remotely serious. I am sure they can add it later, but I am also sure it will be a _hack_. "Great design" from something that is advertised as the new morden, cool and hot thing for Linux desktops.
> 
> ...




Yeah, but Joke or not, Linux developers are able to implement it.

Social phenomena:
Later, BSD can have issue with it - or it has some given X percent of probability (X >= 50 %) that the question will come. What a given population votes and decides alltogether is not necessary the wisest and best (software) solution.


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Feb 4, 2019)

Why settle for one when you can have both?






It got installed with www/firefox-esr. I had unchecked that option on another app and it wouldn't build without support for it in that associated program, but the details not currently available due to lack of sleep.

I don't see your fixation with it, this is one of several times you mention it. Personally, I can't get emotionally involved enough to care about things like it, gtk etc. Of course I'm concerned with vulnerabilities. 

If a program I use needs it to function properly, all that matters is it does so.  It's not like today's machines don't have the power to run or space to install them. Of the two machines I have up this one has 566 packages and the other 556. The difference being ASCII programs and games on this one.

All my laptops are fully functional, use the same basic programs for desktop activities and are never short on resources. That's what I want and expect from them. I can and prefer to work from the login terminal when compiling ports and exit out of x11-wm/fluxbox when I do but for my needs a desktop needs X and it runs under the usr.

Change bad, FreeBSD as it is now good IMO


----------



## Spartrekus (Feb 4, 2019)

Trihexagonal said:


> Why settle for one when you can have both?
> 
> View attachment 5999
> 
> ...



Do we really need need *GTK*?  I don't think so.

---------
It shows what happens during compilation of GTK source code.


gcc gtk_hello.c -o gtkhello `pkg-config --cflags --libs gtk+-2.0`it will need to compile:... -pthread -I/usr/include/gtk-2.0 -I/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/gtk-2.0/include -I/usr/include/gio-unix-2.0/ -I/usr/include/cairo -I/usr/include/pango-1.0 -I/usr/include/atk-1.0 -I/usr/include/cairo -I/usr/include/pixman-1 -I/usr/include/libpng16 -I/usr/include/gdk-pixbuf-2.0 -I/usr/include/libpng16 -I/usr/include/pango-1.0 -I/usr/include/harfbuzz -I/usr/include/pango-1.0 -I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/glib-2.0/include -I/usr/include/freetype2 -lgtk-x11-2.0 -lgdk-x11-2.0 -lpangocairo-1.0 -latk-1.0 -lcairo -lgdk_pixbuf-2.0 -lgio-2.0 -lpangoft2-1.0 -lpango-1.0 -lgobject-2.0 -lglib-2.0 -lfontconfig -lfreetype


----------



## aragats (Feb 4, 2019)

Spartrekus said:


> it has some given X percent of probability (X >= 50 %)


You should use a different letter here, e.g. Y  ;-)


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Feb 4, 2019)

Spartrekus said:


> Do we really need need *GTK*?  I don't think so.



The proper question would be do I need graphics/gimp and the answer a resounding yes. I use it every single day, there is no replacement for it to suit me and it needs GTK to run.

I started using it with Linux and had a harder time figuring it out than Linux.


----------



## aragats (Feb 4, 2019)

Spartrekus said:


> Do we really need need *GTK*? I don't think so.


From the official Xorg website:
«Rather than develop directly for X, we recommend you use a toolkit such as GTK+ or Qt.»


----------



## Spartrekus (Feb 4, 2019)

X and Y : was a good one. Thanks !!!!



aragats said:


> From the official Xorg website:
> «Rather than develop directly for X, we recommend you use a toolkit such as GTK+ or Qt.»



Xorg haven't much choice actually. GTK+ and QT are the most popular.

Quote:


> An opensource developer takes what is available as library.
> A closesource developer takes interests in making its own library.



LIkely FLTK could be added.


----------



## aragats (Feb 4, 2019)

There is always a choice: why even bothering about any high-level libraries, there is great MenuetOS, where everything is written in assembly, and you can write your own GUI in assembly ;-)


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Feb 4, 2019)

I must say that most of this thread is over my head. And that's not because I don't understand what people are saying. I can't imagine why somebody would want a GUI when they can have the luxury of a terminal. We all have different aesthetics of course, but I suspect that younger people with sharp eyes don't actually care about the ease of use because it doesn't matter to them, and that's fair enough.


----------



## aragats (Feb 4, 2019)

OJ said:


> I can't imagine why somebody would want a GUI when they can have the luxury of a terminal.


I'm mostly agreed, but there are at least two things I cannot do in terminal: web browsing and image processing. Although simple image processing I always do with graphics/ImageMagick6 in a terminal.


----------



## Nicola Mingotti (Feb 4, 2019)

aragats said:


> Well, teamviewer is not native for UNIX-like OSs, I use it only to access Windows machines.



Try deskutils/anydesk guys, till now I installed it in a few machines (Windows / Mac) and 
I was never disappointed. I control them remotely by my FreeBSD.

bye
n.


----------



## Spartrekus (Feb 4, 2019)

OJ said:


> I must say that most of this thread is over my head. And that's not because I don't understand what people are saying. I can't imagine why somebody would want a GUI when they can have the luxury of a terminal. We all have different aesthetics of course, but I suspect that younger people with sharp eyes don't actually care about the ease of use because it doesn't matter to them, and that's fair enough.



This was largely true in the past, but today things are a bit more different.

Software evolves according to common user importances. Maybe it has become the web.

Likely, indeed, younger generations may think maybe a bit differently:
the terminal is no longer a luxury. Luxury is GUI.

Usually typical use: file managers, chromium, gimp,... Unfortunately, there is also an important, observed arising use of the web for google drive, google documents, onenote, dropbox, microsoft 360,..., and all these things, that are really present in our modern times. The data are no longer on a FreeBSD webserver but on a Google or Microsoft one. They won't allow SSH 

Social media will also add pressure on younger generations. They likely will tell to use Windows or Mac because it is cool. Won't say to be using a terminal. Whatsapp on a terminal has nothing really cool.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Feb 4, 2019)

Spartrekus said:


> This was largely true in the past, but today things are a bit more different.



Indeed things are changing, and I accept that as a fact of life.  That doesn't mean that things are getting easier to use, from a visual point of view. I personally have difficulty reading GUIs. That would probably have been different if my eyes were as sharp and fast as they were 30 years ago. In any case I feel that moving one's eyes around to see all parts of the screen is a waste of time and energy, even if one is very good at it.

Certainly one thing that is changing is that computer resources don't make a lot of difference to common computer tasks because even people who are quite poor, if they can have a computer at all, can have more than enough cpu/ram to do more than they need. The only thing that is not available to everybody all the time is bandwidth and/or a reliable connection. That said, I think that some people who complain about excessive disk space and RAM usage are indeed mistaken, unless of course they're talking about aesthetics like minimalism - in which case I'm totally in agreement.


----------



## Spartrekus (Feb 4, 2019)

OJ said:


> Indeed things are changing, and I accept that as a fact of life.  That doesn't mean that things are getting easier to use, from a visual point of view. I personally have difficulty reading GUIs. That would probably have been different if my eyes were as sharp and fast as they were 30 years ago. In any case I feel that moving one's eyes around to see all parts of the screen is a waste of time and energy, even if one is very good at it.
> 
> Certainly one thing that is changing is that computer resources don't make a lot of difference to common computer tasks because even people who are quite poor, if they can have a computer at all, can have more than enough cpu/ram to do more than they need. The only thing that is not available to everybody all the time is bandwidth and/or a reliable connection. That said, I think that some people who complain about excessive disk space and RAM usage are indeed mistaken, unless of course they're talking about aesthetics like minimalism - in which case I'm totally in agreement.



Thank you!  There is unfortunately nothing that we can do about social phenomena and these trends. The way would be to boycott google phone and android products, microsoft, .... It can't happen, users are dependents.


----------



## rufwoof (Feb 4, 2019)

I voted yes. For me the question distills down to do I like using a gui browser - which I do compared to a terminal browser. Fundamentally I use a desktop PC and android phone. Aging eyesight and screen space restrict what I can do on the phone, such that the desktop is the more comfortable to use, but fixed (recliner/personal home space), the phone is obviously portable. On the desktop I have tmux/mc/tput menus ..etc running on tty1, Xephyr/pflask (chroot/dropped capabilities etc.) running on tty4 (highly restricted X/gui). Primarily for browsing and listening to music/multimedia, less frequently office type activities (either google docs or local libreoffice). Yes I could use terminal for browsing - but that's not to my liking. Yes I could use terminal cmus for music, but graphical audacious better caters for easy equaliser adjustments (and has nice visualisations).


----------



## wolffnx (Feb 4, 2019)

Spartrekus said:


> This was largely true in the past, but today things are a bit more different.
> 
> Software evolves according to common user importances. Maybe it has become the web.
> 
> ...



that is so true,just when I learned FreeBSD to do all the work(and do it right) like web server,samba,firewall,proxy..all from
the magic of command line, BUT  in my work they started adopting these new technologies...they suck..when I can do the
same things and better with FreeBSD (without neglecting the fact of data security and integrity) like ZFS RAID..etc..etc


----------



## olli@ (Feb 4, 2019)

This survey doesn't make sense, because it mixes things up.

Nobody _needs_ “X forward”. But some people need to be able to use graphical applications via a network connection (“remotely”, although this includes cases where the connection endpoints are on the local machine, for example within jails). This will work with Wayland, too, of course, although (a) it's not called “X forwarding”, and (b) it's not within the scope of Wayland itself. Of course, things like nested servers and VNC clients/servers still work with Wayland – for example, Wayland's Weston compositor supports RDP, and libvnc supports Wayland, although it's still a little immature, but the developers are actively working on it. In fact you can have an X11 layer on top of Wayland if you want (this has very little overhead). Please see the description of the architecture of Wayland and the FAQ.

It should also be noted that “X forwarding” doesn't work very well. For many modern applications it is very inefficient. Many of the common rendering extensions only work with a local display (they didn't exist when the X11 protocol was designed several decades ago). It works with simple things like terminal windows and xclock, but anything more advanced is _slow_, and there are even things that don't work at all. If I had the choice between X forwarding and something built on top of Wayland, I'd choose the latter.


----------



## kpedersen (Feb 4, 2019)

aragats said:


> I'm mostly agreed, but there are at least two things I cannot do in terminal: web browsing and image processing.



I can honestly see terminal web browsing making a comeback. It wont be for many years but the complexity of web browsers is going to become so great (and so full of DRM) that I think open-source communities will have to make a decision; a broken / crippled HTML6 experience or a perfectly working albeit simplistic experience.

I personally would go for the latter and if enough technical users do, this might actually set some sort of critical mass.
I am not entirely talking about Lynx or [e]links, because they are concerned with attempting to display standard web pages in them. I think if an effective TUI browser was going to take off, it would need to be quite a different beast compared to supporting something like CSS. Maybe even something as simple as Gopher.


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Feb 4, 2019)

I can live without it. I don't allow myself remote access, use jails, etc.

I enjoy using `ee` but am much more productive with editors/leafpad if working on my site where I might have 10 instances of it open to work from using copy&paste.

www/youtube_dl is very handy but for mass downloading without 7-8 terminals open at once a browser with DownLoadThemAll (now DownThemAll) extension rules. I can and have worked from multiple terminals running www/youtube_dl as something that is the only option that works for a site. Multiple machines working different sites at once not uncommon if serious about it.

I use a file manager to the extent that I have x11-fm/xfe open from .xinitrc along with x11/rxvt-unicode and leave both open constantly for quick access. I like misc/mc but again can get more work done faster with xfe. Which is what it all boils down to for me. I'm at home with the terminal but much faster with the GUI programs of my choice, even though the little X in the corner of my file manager supposedly makes my x11-wm/fluxbox desktop look like a Windows machine to some. ☣

For music it's multimedia/xmms and over 600 skins in multimedia/xmms-skins-huge to match any desktop theme. You can load around 100 songs to play but there is a upper limit (125?) at which it will crash, but my desktops never crash. One year uptime for my FreeBSD mp3 player within 100 days and xmms runs constantly.



kpedersen said:


> I can honestly see terminal web browsing making a comeback. It wont be for many years but the complexity of web browsers is going to become so great (and so full of DRM) that I think open-source communities will have to make a decision; a broken / crippled HTML6 experience or a perfectly working albeit simplistic experience.



Don't DRM me, bro. If I wanted someone to audit my media I'd upload it to a fluffy pink cloud or use Windows10. www/firefox has developed a bad habit of taking a shot of pages you bookmark for a library or some such innocuous sounding name they cooked up for a spy database.


My eyes are worse from long hours of typing and I'm usually about a foot from the screen without my glasses so I can see type. After so many hours I may lose focus and be touchtyping fast as I can, eyes half crossed and need to regain focus to actually see the keys. If not careful I will glance at a paragraph or post and take that in instead of reading it carefully and need to slow down. Thank you, ports.

My fingers and wetware are not always in sync when going for speed and my fingers sometime type the same word twice while waiting for wetware to catch up. I've seen the same word repeated twice in the bot transcript of a friend at The Forge, where everything is typed by hand. I do it often...


----------



## aragats (Feb 4, 2019)

kpedersen said:


> I can honestly see terminal web browsing making a comeback. It wont be for many years but the complexity of web browsers is going to become so great (and so full of DRM) that I think open-source communities will have to make a decision; a broken / crippled HTML6 experience or a perfectly working albeit simplistic experience.


Whatever we decide to do at the client side won't help if the server side demands too much.
I used graphical www/palemoon browser for long time, but now I can't since more and more sites simply refuse working properly.
I completely agree with you, kpedersen , but I hate using my phone as the only option to browse the Internet...


----------



## rufwoof (Feb 4, 2019)

kpedersen said:


>


I use cwm, no title bars, no tray. The above quoted image (full screen snapshot) is my view of the FreeBSD forum, relatively letter-box. With other window managers that include window title bar, menu bar and tray ... even more so. What with accept cookies and other advertising space some web sites throw at you and quite often you have very little applicable content visible. Totally agree, something like gopher perhaps along with the option to ssh into desired/target web sites, that accommodated textual browsers would have great appeal. Fundamentally however its the adverts that pay for the internet, even if the cost to many is the giving away of their personal profile.


----------



## Spartrekus (Feb 4, 2019)

olli@ said:


> Nobody _needs_ “X forward”.


This sentence is X percents against other choices. Eventually, one day, if you have some time, you may think what it may mean for someone.
(X = 100%)

You may just delete it...


----------



## olli@ (Feb 4, 2019)

Spartrekus said:


> This sentence is X percents against other choices. Eventually, one day, if you have some time, you may think what it may mean for someone.
> (X = 100%)
> 
> You may just delete it...


Obviously you did not completely read what I wrote. You probably stopped after the sentence that you quoted. I encourage you to read the rest, too, then you will understand.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Feb 4, 2019)

olli@ said:


> This survey doesn't make sense, because it mixes things up.



I thought people were talking about running their browsers on a remote server because they don't have the computing power to do so at home or work. Hard to say really, what the intention is here.



kpedersen said:


> I can honestly see terminal web browsing making a comeback.



I run lynx often. Sometimes when I'm running DOS, as it's the only viable browser for that OS. But also when I want to browse the net from a remote location - typically for a quick check of some kind. That said, it seems pretty viable still. I just checked the Washington Post as an example of a contemporary site, and it worked fine as plain text. However, as web developers get less and less skilled at communication and put more emphases on pure game like entertainment, I'm not sure that it will be possible to extract actual text as readily usable information.


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Feb 5, 2019)

OJ said:


> I just checked the Washington Post as an example of a contemporary site, and it worked fine as plain text. However, as web developers get less and less skilled at communication and put more emphases on pure game like entertainment, I'm not sure that it will be possible to extract actual text as readily usable information.



They don't get much more painfully plain text than my sites. Maybe some dancing baloney... 

I like www/lynx but don't have it installed ATM. I need to so I can look at Demonica's site. I prefer Mozilla based browsers and usually end up using them for browsing even if I do have lynx.

I just added a viewport metatag so people on a smartphone could resize the screen. I've never owned one so it may not even work like it should, but it makes google happy. It already scaled to size with a browser squeeze.

They were going to penalize me if I didn't add it, tyrants. Gave you HTTPS when I didn't need it to keep you happy now you need viewport. Reminds me of something...


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Feb 5, 2019)

Trihexagonal said:


> They don't get much more painfully plain text than my sites. Maybe some dancing baloney...


And I thank you for that! Yes, I realized that my original comment was perhaps a bit inflammatory, but regardless of the fact that people do need to make a living and it's hard to buck the trend, there is definitely a need to fight back. If for no reason other than general compatibility and security.


----------



## kpedersen (Feb 5, 2019)

I think a lot of people are already annoyed enough by bloated sites. I wonder what would happen if a well known techie forums wrote a forum software explicitly for lynx and then checked in the User Agent variable for the presence of "Lynx" and rejected all other requests... would this be enough for people to install lynx? Or would they just use another forum? Would be an interesting experiment.

FreeBSD forums could be our Guinea pig


----------



## hruodr (Feb 5, 2019)

I read with w3m pages that are so bloated that are unreadable with firefox. Not with all possible, but with many: w3m acts like a bloat filter.


----------



## Nicola Mingotti (Feb 5, 2019)

I considered for while if to participate in the pool ... I concluded that I can’t vote. I feel no need to change X, for me it is just fine.

I guess I do not need W. ; and I like the forward stuff. I don’t use it frequently. But sometimes I found it more practical than VNC & cousins.

For example, suppose you are analyzing remote data with R, it is extremely useful to be able to see plots generated remotely in real time, on you screen.  Cause the remote machine may be a big one. (a few years ago I did this a lot)

Another practical use I remember is this, I was getting scientific papers with `ssh -X foo@mac1  firefox` because computer mac1 was is the subnet allowed to retrieve articles. Getting the VPN to work was quite difficult. VNC server was not set up on mac1. ( a decade ago )

In the end `ssh -X` is so easy all user can do it and do it well. I want to keep it. 

bye
n.


----------



## olli@ (Feb 5, 2019)

OJ said:


> I run lynx often.


I recommend having a look at `links` (port www/links) and `w3m` (port www/w3m). Both are text-mode web browsers like lynx, but generally work much better because they support more HTML features like tables, frames and menus. Note that `links` also has a port option to add X11 support (enabled by default), so it can display inline images if you want. Furthermore, there is a variant called `elinks` that includes support for JavaScript (it's somewhat limited, of course, but it's enough that you can navigate some sites that don't work at all with lynx).

Another piece of software worth mentioning is `dillo` (www/dillo2). Its is a graphical web browser, so it requires X11, but it is based on the lightweight FLTK toolkit. It does _not_ support JavaScript, which means that some sites don't work with it. On the other hand, it is _very_ fast (try it!), is more secure, it has a very small footprint, and it also works well with low-end hardware (slow CPU, small memory). A nice side-effect of missing javaScript support is that you don't need an ad-blocker, because most ads require JavaScript. 

Because of their technical shortcomings, none of the browsers mentioned above can replace a standard web browser (like Chrome or Firefox) completely. However, they can be used as an alternative or supplement for certain sites where they work better. For example, I use Dillo to read a certain news site, which is _much_ fast than any standard browser (and removes the ads). Although the formatting of the pages is a little weird, you can still read the text and see the images without problems, which is _why_ I read the news site after all.


----------



## kpedersen (Feb 5, 2019)

olli@ said:


> but generally work much better because they support more HTML features like tables, frames and menus



No! The less HTML features, the better. Thats the whole point 

But yes, I agree, lynx is the most bare bones of them all making it infeasible for the "modern web". That said, I have been told that it gives the best experience for those with sight related disabilities. I wonder why? Is it because it basically lays everything out like a list rather than allowing things to be i.e right justified?

Offtopic: I am very tempted to write a tiny "lynx-only" forums just to see how user friendly I can make it.


----------



## hruodr (Feb 5, 2019)

kpedersen said:


> Offtopic: I am very tempted to write a tiny "lynx-only" forums just to see how user friendly I can make it.



An nntp server? Lynx can read news.


----------



## olli@ (Feb 5, 2019)

kpedersen said:


> No! The less HTML features, the better. Thats the whole point


In that case you should simply use `telnet` (for HTTP) or `openssl s_client` (for HTTPS).

But seriously … Many sites use tables for various purposes, so a client supporting tables is better than one that does not. And being able to render tables doesn't impose any disadvantages, as far as I can see. (Unlike e.g. supporting JavaScript, which has several disadvantages regarding security and efficiency.)



> Offtopic: I am very tempted to write a tiny "lynx-only" forums just to see how user friendly I can make it.


Indeed, that might be interesting. However, please don't needlessly exclude users of links or w3m from using it.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Feb 6, 2019)

olli@ said:


> I recommend having a look at `links` (port www/links) and `w3m` (port www/w3m). Both are text-mode web browsers like lynx, but generally work much better because they support more HTML features like tables, frames and menus. Note that `links` also has a port option to add X11 support (enabled by default), so it can display inline images if you want. Furthermore, there is a variant called `elinks` that includes support for JavaScript (it's somewhat limited, of course, but it's enough that you can navigate some sites that don't work at all with lynx).



Excellent suggestions. I'm familiar with those, but don't find the extra features very compelling. Interestingly, I just installed both on a remote server in order to confirm my opinion of them, and Google blocked me with a message saying they've detected unusual activity. That's both funny and sad, and shows what we're up against here.



olli@ said:


> Another piece of software worth mentioning is `dillo` (www/dillo2).



That was my default browser for a while. "Default" meaning the one that pops up when I click on a link outside of my regular Firefox browser. It actually displays almost everything I want to see and the blazing speed is wonderful. That said, it is not good because it doesn't integrate with cut/paste, making it almost useless for most things that I encounter. I still need to open the link in something else anyway.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Feb 6, 2019)

kpedersen said:


> Offtopic: I am very tempted to write a tiny "lynx-only" forums just to see how user friendly I can make it.



I vote for that! I'm sure there are many communities who would make use of that - one being the vintage computing people.


----------



## aragats (Feb 6, 2019)

There is a funny project – browsh. A text-mode browser which uses headless Firefox for rendering.
Browsh requires a true-color terminal, e.g. x11/sterm. The download link for FreeBSD-amd64 is incorrect: the trailing _.deb_ has to be removed.
May have some use cases, here is a screenshot:


----------



## Spartrekus (Feb 6, 2019)

aragats said:


> There is a funny project – browsh. A text-mode browser which uses headless Firefox for rendering.
> Browsh requires a true-color terminal, e.g. x11/sterm. The download link for FreeBSD-amd64 is incorrect: the trailing _.deb_ has to be removed.
> May have some use cases, here is a screenshot:
> View attachment 6011


nice !
What says _top_ (cpu/mem....) about it?

OJ
vintage terminal-based community could be relatively small, but still it is sufficiently large enough. What's future of terminal softwares (on termcap, ncurses,...)?


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Feb 6, 2019)

Spartrekus said:


> OJ
> vintage terminal-based community could be relatively small, but still it is sufficiently large enough. What's future of terminal softwares (on termcap, ncurses,...)?



There are a lot of DOS users and people using Commodore and other1980s computers. We run IRC and text based stuff quite easily. There's a lot of functionality, but forums are a huge pain with a text based browser like Lynx, or even with the only decent DOS browser, which is Arachne. It would be great to run a forum that everybody could actually use on the vintage kit, and not have to discuss on a separate modern machine.


----------



## olli@ (Feb 6, 2019)

Regarding Dillo …


OJ said:


> That was my default browser for a while. "Default" meaning the one that pops up when I click on a link outside of my regular Firefox browser. It actually displays almost everything I want to see and the blazing speed is wonderful. That said, it is not good because it doesn't integrate with cut/paste, making it almost useless for most things that I encounter. I still need to open the link in something else anyway.


Have you tried `autocutsel` (deskutils/autocutsel)? It synchronizes the various clipboards and cut buffers supported under X11. It has solved all copy&paste-related problems for me.


----------



## olli@ (Feb 6, 2019)

aragats said:


> There is a funny project – browsh. A text-mode browser which uses headless Firefox for rendering.


Funny indeed. I think it's quite crazy (and tremendously inefficient) to let the text content of a web page be rendered into graphics, and then use OCR to convert that back to text. And it isn't very good at it; the screenshot you posted contained many obvious OCR errors.


----------



## Spartrekus (Feb 6, 2019)

olli@ said:


> Funny indeed. I think it's quite crazy (and tremendously inefficient) to let the text content of a web page be rendered into graphics, and then use OCR to convert that back to text. And it isn't very good at it; the screenshot you posted contained many obvious OCR errors.



I would be interested to know what does the CPU ... 

By the way, if ssh -X does not exists, because of no X11 forward, how will work vim --servername foo ?

example:
Host:
start X and run: 
vim --servername foo
(you can on :0)

Client:
ssh -X host
export DISPLAY=:0
vim --servername foo --remote-send "<Esc>oHello World<Esc>"


Without X11 forward, this option of vim makes no longer sense.

CCL:
Wayland will bring more issues than do something positive for BSD.
For Linux gamers, maybe fine, but not for Unix professionals.


----------



## SirDice (Feb 6, 2019)

Spartrekus said:


> example:
> Host:
> start X and run:
> vim --servername foo
> (you can on :0)


Why not simply run `ssh me@somehost vim file_on_somehost`?



Spartrekus said:


> For Linux gamers, maybe fine, but not for Unix professionals.


Real professionals don't rely on a GUI.


----------



## Spartrekus (Feb 6, 2019)

SirDice said:


> Why not simply run `ssh me@somehost vim file_on_somehost`?
> 
> 
> Real professionals don't rely on a GUI.



*(1) VIM CLIENT/SERVER*
servername is a client/server option..
It communicates over X, so it needs definitely X11 forward 
The communication between client and server goes through the X server.  The
display of the Vim server must be specified.  The usual protection of the X
server is used, you must be able to open a window on the X server for the
communication to work.  It is possible to communicate between different
systems.
more reading: http://vimdoc.sourceforge.net/htmldoc/remote.html

*(2) FORWARD FOR VNC*
Another way (non cool) to export the display is as follows.
HOST:
ssh -R 5959:localhost:5900 192.168.1.20
x11vnc
It will create a reverse ssh on  192.168.1.20

DISTANT:
xtightvncviewer localhost:5959

it will export display.

*3) Way using X11*
ssh -C -X -R 5959:localhost:22 192.168.1.20
Then on localhost you can use a given app to view full display.


----------



## aragats (Feb 6, 2019)

Spartrekus said:


> The communication between client and server goes through the X server.


I really don't understand any possible need of that. I always use screen/tmux on a remote server, so can (re)attach (broken) sessions with vim or whatever else.
What's a real life scenario you may need it in?


----------



## Spartrekus (Feb 6, 2019)

aragats said:


> I really don't understand any possible need of that. I always use screen/tmux on a remote server, so can (re)attach (broken) sessions with vim or whatever else.
> What's a real life scenario you may need it in?



vim / client/server / +servername is for professionals that usually write books and articles using FreeBSD.

It shows that X11 can be used for desktop but as well for just terminal applications like vim.


----------



## aragats (Feb 6, 2019)

Spartrekus said:


> It shows that X11 can be used for desktop.


"Desktop" is the keyword!
I find RDP much more universal: it supports remote audio, directories mapping, clipboards and much more.


----------



## Spartrekus (Feb 6, 2019)

aragats said:


> "Desktop" is the keyword!
> I find RDP much more universal: it supports remote audio, directories mapping, clipboards and much more.



RDP?


----------



## aragats (Feb 6, 2019)

Remote desktop, e.g. FreeRDP.


----------



## Spartrekus (Feb 6, 2019)

aragats said:


> Remote desktop, e.g. FreeRDP.



It looks ugly bloat, right?

Even for Microsoft


----------



## aragats (Feb 6, 2019)

Spartrekus said:


> It looks ugly bloat, right?


I don't think so. It depends mostly on X libs, the installed size with libraries is less than 5MB.


----------



## Spartrekus (Feb 6, 2019)

aragats said:


> I don't think so. It depends mostly on X libs, the installed size with libraries is less than 5MB.



It can be popular on Windows, Linux (Ubuntu,...),... but it won't be adopted by the BSD community.


----------



## aragats (Feb 6, 2019)

Spartrekus said:


> it cannot be for BSD community


Why not? If somebody implement a good server part.
I'll repeat your keyword: for Desktop ;-)


----------



## olli@ (Feb 7, 2019)

Spartrekus, you should free yourself from the assumption that “X11 forwarding” is the only (or best) way to use graphical applications remotely. It is not the only way, and it is not the best way, technically speaking. It may be, however, currently the way that is used the most among UNIX and BSD users, but that doesn't mean it's the best and has to stay forever.

The X11 protocol was invented more than 30 years ago, when programs needed commands to draw lines, rectangles, triangles, circles, and text. There was no such thing as 3D or video or audio or most other things that modern applications use. That's why modern Xorg servers need to have 30 extensions on top of X11. Today, most applications don't draw lines and circles. Instead, they render their own bitmaps and transfer them to the X server. This works ok for local servers where the display can be accessed directly, but it works rather pathetic for remote connections. Modern protocols such as advanced versions of VNC (e.g. TightVNC) are much better at it. Also, Wayland is optimized for that kind of use.

Don't worry, nobody will take X11 (or X11 forwarding) away from you anytime soon. But please try to think a little bit out of the box. Maybe X11 is more than enough for you, but it's becoming more and more painful for a growing number of people. Time doesn't stand still, demands and requirements are changing, software and hardware is changing. The world is changing. Sometimes we have to adopt new technologies to keep up.


----------



## hukadan (Feb 7, 2019)

If you just need to run one or two X applications on a remote server, it seems to me that x11/xpra  is more adapted than VNC. I know that the Subgraph Linux distribution uses it in order to isolate X applications from each other.


----------



## hruodr (Feb 7, 2019)

olli@ said:


> The X11 protocol was invented more than 30 years ago, when programs needed commands to draw lines, rectangles, triangles, circles, and text



It would be nice if the aplications limit themselves to use that and do not need extensions to send binary data. Or do you thing modern programming will draw by sending binary data better than drawing with commands?


----------



## olli@ (Feb 7, 2019)

hruodr said:


> It would be nice if the aplications limit themselves to use that and do not need extensions to send binary data. Or do you thing modern programming will draw by sending binary data better than drawing with commands?



Well, it depends. You are right when we talk about simple applications, i.e. things like terminal emulators (xterm, rxvt), xclock *(*)*, xeyes, xmixer and so on. Of course, these use simple drawing functions (lines, circles, text, …), and that's perfectly fine.

However, it's a lot different when we talk about complex applications like Gimp, InkScape, Scribus, Blender, graphical web browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Opera), and so on. For example, you cannot use the X11 protocol to render SVG graphics. The application has to do that itself (or via a specialized library), and then use the X11 protocol to send the resulting bitmap to the display server – either via X11's native `PutImage` request, or via an extension such as DRI.

By the way, if you're interested how the actual X11 protocol looks like, here is the specification:
https://www.x.org/releases/X11R7.7/doc/xproto/x11protocol.html

*(*)* Note that even an app as simple as xclock uses an extension (the “render” extension) in order to be able to draw antialiased and overlapping semi-transparent clock hands. This wouldn't be possible with the core X11 protocol alone.


----------



## getopt (Feb 7, 2019)

Where FreeBSD graphics is going to:









						FOSDEM 2019 - FreeBSD Graphics
					






					fosdem.org
				




Well done by Niclas Zeising see slides/video there.


----------



## hruodr (Feb 7, 2019)

olli@ said:


> The application has to do that itself (or via a specialized library), and then use the X11 protocol to send the resulting bitmap to the display server – either via X11's native `PutImage` request, or via an extension such as DRI.



If that is so important for the application, then it must be divided in client and sever, and have a protocol for not sending binary, but to build the bitmap at the client.


----------



## olli@ (Feb 7, 2019)

hruodr said:


> If that is so important for the application, then it must be divided in client and sever, and have a protocol for not sending binary, but to build the bitmap at the client.


I'm sorry, I don't understand. Can you word that differently, please?
The X11 protocol _is_ a binary protocol. And it _is_ a client-server protocol. And clients already build bitmaps (well, not all of them – video players do not, for example, but that's a different story). So what do you suggest to change?


----------



## hruodr (Feb 7, 2019)

olli@ said:


> Can you word that differently, please?



Not to send bitmap, but (vector) description. It does not need to be X11 protocol, X11 server, X11 client.


----------



## olli@ (Feb 7, 2019)

hruodr said:


> Not to send bitmap, but vector description. It does not need to be X11 protocol, X11 server, X11 client.


Ok, if I understand you correctly, you mean introducing another level of abstraction inside the application. That could be done, of course (and there already are libraries that do exactly that), but it's an implementation detail of the application and has nothing to do with the communication with the display server.


----------



## hruodr (Feb 7, 2019)

Implementation detail of the application, but there are libraries independent of a specific application? One needs perhaps a standard.


----------



## Spartrekus (Feb 7, 2019)

@Ollie:
The poll clearly shows that users do care about X11, i.e. X11 forward.

It seems that FreeBSD will or could go for Wayland:


			https://fosdem.org/2019/schedule/event/freebsd_graphics/attachments/slides/3132/export/events/attachments/freebsd_graphics/slides/3132/graphics_noanimations.pdf
		


*1. Acceleration/GL at which cost?*
I don't need OpenGL for opening a terminal xterm !

*2. Caring about our planet?*
Wayland will bring the end of low cost, low power hardwares (eg. Pi Raspberry). Wayland is against principle of worldwide concern of energy savings.

*3. Computer science for the poors?*
Wayland: Just get a better hardware (like Microsoft advises.)...

*4. Why imposing instead of coexist?*
[Few ideas...

Don't touch what works ; keep improving it and make code simplifications.
Programming :  simplify and clean the source code (not the opposite).
Early a new project is better before starting to make a greater complex software bloatware (e.g. Wayland). The first original smaller project should be readily compilable, being available and always there, stable, reliable as ever.
    By the end, a smaller project will have always highest performances and it will be the most stable and reliable.

Wayland should be a new project without interfering with X11.
Both X11 and Wayland hack should coexist.
This is the above rule (#3).


> Wayland for young developers, heavy desktops like KDE, Linux gamers ;  X11 for Desktop Unix retros.



*5. Old but it still works today - sometimes more than 40 years.*
Best example - the most simple C compiler will power all Unix operating systems. Old means working like solid.

Very old but still there because they are simple - being reliable :
=>   asm , C , vi , ee , ed , vim , emacs , awk , osh , sh , pascal/fortran , blackbox , icewm , dwm , feh , .... scrot ....
       it is visible : the smaller the code, the better.

Very old but code explosion due to complexity and no possible fix :
GTK , KDE ,  Java , HTML/CSS , Freevo ,  ...


Finally, enjoy this quote:


> The only people who take Wayland seriously are the people who just read "it's a new replacement for X11" and don't know what it does; it's not a replacement at all. It turns Unix into Android where you have no control over your own system any more; it's a goddamn walled garden.


----------



## olli@ (Feb 8, 2019)

Spartrekus said:


> The poll clearly shows that users do care about X11, i.e. X11 forward.


What if you had worded the poll differently? For example:
“Do you need to be able to use graphical applications remotely? ▫ yes ▫ no”
I believe you would have gotten the same result, because for most people it means the same. But your poll depends on a certain technology, while my suggestion would be technology-agnostic.

Regarding your other points:

I'm not sure why you bring OpenGL into the game. If you don't need it, don't use it.
Wayland doesn't have more hardware requirements than X11. In fact, Wayland strives to _remove_ some of the useless complexity that X11 has. X11 is a big, fat dinosaur.
As already mentioned, nobody is taking X11 away from you. Don't worry. Let me write it in big, friendly letters: *Don't panic.*
I suggest you read a little bit about Wayland, because it seems you don't know much about it. And I don't mean reading those blogs from people who hate Wayland and spread FUD, I mean the actual documents about Wayland's architecture and specification.


----------



## kpedersen (Feb 8, 2019)

I think my worry about Wayland is it will become quite naive like Android or Windows.

For example, VNC on Windows, you can only have 1 session. VNC on Linux/X11 you can have multiple? Why is that? The answer is actually X11.
Sure, X11 itself isn't great for streaming modern GUI software but it opens up VNC and alternatives to a multi-user design.
As it stands VNC servers on Linux can create a new X11 server and even use the old XDMCP query system to get a decent enterprise multi-desktop system going with VNC and RDP.

I can almost guarantee we will lose that with Wayland. Why? Because all the Wayland kids don't even know what remote desking is and don't give a shite, they just want Steam games to work 1% faster :/


----------



## Spartrekus (Feb 8, 2019)

kpedersen said:


> I think my worry about Wayland is it will become quite naive like Android or Windows.
> 
> For example, VNC on Windows, you can only have 1 session. VNC on Linux/X11 you can have multiple? Why is that? The answer is actually X11.
> Sure, X11 itself isn't great for streaming modern GUI software but it opens up VNC and alternatives to a multi-user design.
> ...



+  to replace X11 is the very most important.
It doesn't matter  actually if it is wayland or not, the point is to replace X11. Maybe there are Google or Gnome plots behind...


----------



## aragats (Feb 8, 2019)

kpedersen said:


> VNC on Windows, you can only have 1 session. VNC on Linux/X11 you can have multiple? Why is that?


That's not a good argument. Regular Windows license doesn't allow multisession, it's not a technical issue. However, you can buy a special license to do so.


----------



## kpedersen (Feb 8, 2019)

aragats said:


> That's not a good argument. Regular Windows license doesn't allow multisession, it's not a technical issue. However, you can buy a special license to do so.



Why did you immediately jump to the conclusion I was talking about a home edition of Windows? For example Windows Server and Enterprise allows multi-users and VNC cannot do it on that platform. You have to use RDP. This has nothing to do with licensing.

The reason why VNC cannot do it is because the Windows display system (like Wayland) is not multi-user. It is a technical issue. especially if you look at older versions (i.e pre NT4 TSE). The design of Wayland is basically Windows 98 .

Basically check out the first line of text here: https://archive.realvnc.com/products/vnc/documentation/4.5/unix/vncserver.html. It explains quite succinctly why UNIX can have multiple virtual display servers and Windows can't. Basically X11 is the answer and this will not be possible with Wayland.

Yes, you might know that due to RDP (Citrix Winframe technology) it supports multiple users but this is actually a very different technology to the standard limited Wayland-like naive desktop system that Linux users will have in a few years.

Come to think of it, since virtual desktops is now possible on macOS. Linux will be the _only_ OS that cannot support multiple desktops for logged in users! Haha, thats kinda sad.


----------



## kpedersen (Feb 8, 2019)

Spartrekus said:


> Windows 98 graphics would definitely make a big revolution for Unix - like operating systems.



I actually like Windows 9x (and DOS technology) because it is _light_.

The Wayland kids will not only make a display system which is as limited as Windows 98, but they will also still manage to make it slow and shite XD.

Look at Windows 95 vs Gnome 3. The accessibility control panel alone has a much more vast set of customation tools compared to the entirety of Gnome 3 and yet it uses less RAM than a single Gnome 3 button! Haha.


----------



## aragats (Feb 8, 2019)

kpedersen said:


> Windows Server and Enterprise allows multi-users and VNC cannot do it on that platform. You have to use RDP. This has nothing to do with licensing.





kpedersen said:


> VNC on Windows, you can only have 1 session. VNC on Linux/X11 you can have multiple


Sorry, I still don't understand your point. Each user logged in Windows can run his own VNC server (of course, using different TCP ports). They perfectly work simultaneously.
If the same Windows user runs 2 VNC servers, of course, they will show the same desktop. In contrast, you can run multiple X servers as the same user, that's why multiple VNC servers will show the corresponding (different) environments.
The question now: is it possible to run two or more Wayland servers simultaneously? I don't now.


----------



## olli@ (Feb 8, 2019)

aragats said:


> The question now: is it possible to run two or more Wayland servers simultaneously? I don't now.


It's not different from X11. Both Wayland and X11 servers require a physical display (not counting unusual things like xnest that are not very useful in practice). You can, at most, run one display server per physical display.

However, you can – for example – run one (or more) xvnc servers on one (or more) machines, and connect them to a VNC client running on Wayland on another machine. This is perfectly possible.

By the way, I'm afraid that this thread reaches a state where it is in violation of forum rules (e.g. Thread 66591). Some people continuously spread FUD about Wayland and its future in FreeBSD (and the putative non-future of X11 in FreeBSD); I don't think that's appropriate for this forum.


----------



## aragats (Feb 8, 2019)

olli@ said:


> You can, at most, run one display server per physical display.


In fact, when you launch `vncserver` (e.g. from net/tightvnc), it starts another X server.


olli@ said:


> I'm afraid that this thread reaches a state where it is in violation of forum rules


I agree, every technical question/answer is followed by groundless emotional splashes...


----------



## kpedersen (Feb 8, 2019)

aragats said:


> Sorry, I still don't understand your point. Each user logged in Windows can run his own VNC server (of course, using different TCP ports). They perfectly work simultaneously.



I think you are confusing things with RDP. You can only log multiple users in because of RDP. Just like X11, if you do not have a multi-user aware display system (such as Wayland), you will not be able to log in multiple users to run their own VNC.

Honestly, try this with Windows 98 (or a non-multi-user edition like Windows XP Home) and you will see what I mean.

RDP and X11 are suitable for multi-user systems.
Wayland isnt. No amount of VNC can help this.



aragats said:


> In fact, when you launch `vncserver` (e.g. from net/tightvnc), it starts another X server.


Yep, this is basically where Wayland drops the ball. You cannot start a "Wayland server". Only one will exist; the physical display. Anything else is "outside the scope of Wayland" meaning that the kids haven't thought about it yet (and probably do not care :/)


----------



## aragats (Feb 8, 2019)

I understand what you're saying, and mostly agree. So, RDP is another way to provide a multi-seat environment.
However, VNC itself has nothing to do with it.
«VNC is a graphical desktop-sharing system that uses the Remote Frame Buffer protocol (RFB) to remotely control another computer»
You say "For example, VNC on Windows, you can only have 1 session", but that phrase is incorrect _per se_.


----------



## shkhln (Feb 8, 2019)

kpedersen said:


> Yep, this is basically where Wayland drops the ball. You cannot start a "Wayland server". Only one will exist; the physical display. Anything else is "outside the scope of Wayland" meaning that the kids haven't thought about it yet (and probably do not care :/)



This is a bit overly dramatic, Weston's RDP backend is claimed to be multiseat aware.


----------



## kpedersen (Feb 8, 2019)

aragats said:


> You say "For example, VNC on Windows, you can only have 1 session", but that phrase is incorrect _per se_.



True, but running VNC from an RDP session seems like cheating 



shkhln said:


> This is a bit overly dramatic, Weston's RDP backend is claimed to be multiseat aware.



We shall see. The goals of the Linux community these days seem to be so far detached from what *nix was originally meant for, I think it is going to be an absolute mess when it comes to the enterprise. Seeing RedHat Enterprise 7 with a semi-broken Gnome 3 fallback environment as default is quite a testament to this.


----------



## oops (Feb 8, 2019)

olli@ said:


> You can, at most, run one display server per physical display.


Have you actually tested? Try `startx -- :0`, `startx -- :1`, etc. then switch via Ctrl + Alt + F<N> or `vidcontrol -s <N> </dev/ttyv0`.


----------



## rufwoof (Mar 10, 2019)

oops said:


> Have you actually tested? Try `startx -- :0`, `startx -- :1`, etc. then switch via Ctrl + Alt + F<N> or `vidcontrol -s <N> </dev/ttyv0`.


I do it all the time on my linux boot. 
Xephyr :1 &
DISPLAY=:1 cwm & .... or whatever.
Total separation. And if you combine that with unshare, capabilities being dropped (capsh), chroot (with chroot capability dropped) ... then you can have high performance graphics also running in a contained environment. You could even go the Apple like extreme of running each program in its own contained environment, without the vm lag. Works best where the main system is a squashed filesystem as you can mount that same base system in each/every chroot'd 'container' with very low overhead. https://easyos.org/ is a example.

Can even set each to appear on a different Ctrl-Alt-Fn terminal (add a vt3 or whatever parameter). I can for instance have EasyOS main (real root) on ctrl-alt-F4, a Easy Container (duff root) running on Ctrl-Alt-F3, a Debian boot running on Ctrl-Alt-F2 (again running inside a Xephyr/chroot), and all running as though they were installed to bare metal (low/no graphical latency).


----------



## unitrunker (Mar 10, 2019)

I like running remote X apps without those remote app windows trapped inside an RDP frame. I can have a remote X client window on my desktop work space mixed in with other app windows. Also - Wayland and X11 are not mutually exclusive. Walyand compositor can talk directly to the hardware while the X server talks to clients.


----------



## Spartrekus (Mar 24, 2019)

The funny thing is that the poll gives 10 to 6 for without x11.

I would not be surprised that FreeBSD would go to Wayland.
Even systemd 

This is like voting for a new president.

--
@kpedersen: Greetings to you ! Best regards.


----------



## aragats (Mar 24, 2019)

Spartrekus said:


> The funny thing is that the poll gives 10 to 6 for without x11.
> I would not be surprised that FreeBSD would go to Wayland.
> Even systemd


Putting the rest of complex logic aside, do you really think the 16 votes scientifically represent 1300 active users (as danger@ mentioned recently) to make a statistical inference?


----------



## Spartrekus (Mar 25, 2019)

aragats said:


> Putting the rest of complex logic aside, do you really think the 16 votes scientifically represent 1300 active users (as danger@ mentioned recently) to make a statistical inference?



It is a relatively smaller group (*BSD, all included) than MS Windows.


----------



## Spartrekus (Apr 22, 2019)

to aragats

vnc is useful ok but....

I have to say that VNC is a huge resource waster. hugewaster.
let s run xterm and x11 take nothing over x11 forward.
I can give you the code if you want so that you see it with your eyes.

x11 forward is tiny and does not need x11 to be running.

vnc is wasting resource and cpu of a given machine.


----------



## aragats (Apr 22, 2019)

Spartrekus said:


> I have to say that VNC is a huge resource waster. hugewaster.
> let s run xterm and x11 take nothing over x11 forward.
> I can give you the code if you want so that you see it with your eyes.


But who's arguing with this??
You don't read carefully what people tell, you're blindly trying to prove you're right. And you are – with certain reservations.
Many people (including myself) pointed that X11 forwarding doesn't always work with modern GUIs.
Every day I happily use X11 forwarding to work with Beyond Compare by running it in a remote Linux box, and it perfectly works although has a complex UI.
In contrast, a very simple image vewier graphics/feh doesn't work at all (it hangs and has to be killed then with "kill -9". So, to quickly view a remote picture I have to run more complex graphics/geeqie.


----------



## Spartrekus (Apr 22, 2019)

aragats said:


> But who's arguing with this??
> You don't read carefully what people tell, you're blindly trying to prove you're right. And you are – with certain reservations.
> Many people (including myself) pointed that X11 forwarding doesn't always work with modern GUIs.
> Every day I happily use X11 forwarding to work with Beyond Compare by running it in a remote Linux box, and it perfectly works although has a complex UI.
> In contrast, a very simple image vewier graphics/feh doesn't work at all (it hangs and has to be killed then with "kill -9". So, to quickly view a remote picture I have to run more complex graphics/geeqie.



no one is right or wrong .
the tue is that x11 forward is slow for elaborated libraries.
I use vnc for fast graphics but for simple x11 applications   such as x11 lib based ones for logs mostly I will use x11 forward. x11 lib does well and fast.
The bottle neck is that largely we hangs in using softwares instead of compiling our own code. this for education purpose dand flexibility.

Once a windows c sharp coder told me that in windows there are all tools for programmers.
But on Unix you have to make it yourself you have to make everything yourself. I liked it because this is really right.

Since feh hangs what about trying lodepng to dipslay if you can survive with png. ..


x11 ppm is doable but likely it wont fit your needs because it need elaboration.

Recently I use cacalib to display on distant monitor nice fast workaround.
with img2txt it works.


----------

