You have missed vladimir's reply [1]: mind the XRender. When Qt's (can't speak for GTK) graphics operation go through XRender, it's not just dumb bitmap flying around; it's drwing operations. They may hit hardware directly, or be transported over network.
> Also, the fact that X requires extra software to do decent network transparency proves the point that it sucks for its intended purpose.
I believe X11 was meant for use on LAN, with terminals talking to one beefy machine. To bolster that point, XDMCP [2] by design operates in broadcast domain, which, in typical scenario, is LAN. You need to go extra lengths to connect over routed network, wich may serve as a reminder you are going beyond intented use.
And we agreed it works a-OK on LAN :-)
It's a damn shame X resources [3] became a lost art. Probably thanks to certain prolific cross-platform toolkits.
At any rate, I find it ridiculous that, having a bit of Plan 9 background, I ended up defending X11. Which is old and outdated from my perspective, but still way less than RDP. Bind me /dev/draw over network anytime.
> Also, the fact that X requires extra software to do decent network transparency proves the point that it sucks for its intended purpose.
I believe X11 was meant for use on LAN, with terminals talking to one beefy machine. To bolster that point, XDMCP [2] by design operates in broadcast domain, which, in typical scenario, is LAN. You need to go extra lengths to connect over routed network, wich may serve as a reminder you are going beyond intented use.
And we agreed it works a-OK on LAN :-)
It's a damn shame X resources [3] became a lost art. Probably thanks to certain prolific cross-platform toolkits.
At any rate, I find it ridiculous that, having a bit of Plan 9 background, I ended up defending X11. Which is old and outdated from my perspective, but still way less than RDP. Bind me /dev/draw over network anytime.
----
[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2354124
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xdmcp
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_resources