That's true, using freenx to access a whole desktop works well with xfce and no sound. I can't imagine it working so well if trying to run gnome-shell, sound etc remotely.
I get the impression a lot of the current desktop infrastructure doesn't make sense when accessed remotely, eg if I ssh'ed into a machine what could I usefully do with nm-applet or a lot of other desktop infrastructure? A lot of the desktop is already beyond the reach of X.
On 9 Nov 2010 22:26, "Lennart Poettering" <mzerqung@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Tue, 09.11.10 23:14, Miloslav Trmač (mitr@xxxxxxxx) wrote:
Oh, of course you can blame X for that. There's simply no sane way how
> Lennart Poettering píše v Út 09. 11...
to get a "parallel" connection for D-Bus/GConf/ICE/PA/whatever to the
main X11 display connection. Something like that has been tried a number
of times, but in some way or the other it just failed in the end. It's a
can of worms. Really, for example in the GConf case I know that Havoc
spent quite some time to design the IPC so that it could be used
alongside X11 on the network, but eventually gave up on it.
I think it is fundamentally wrong to ask us to support setups where you
might or might not share $HOME, might or might not share the D-Bus
session bus, might or might not share the D-Bus system bus, might or
might not share PA, might or might not share GConf, might or might not
share X11 displays, in all combinations over the network at all times.
Complete flexibility like that is not only impossible to manage or test,
but also inherently slow. For example: if you say the D-Bus bus should
be shared across the network, but $HOME shouldn't, then applications
could not refer to files anymore in the bus protocols, which would
basically require them to pipe everything through a bus, which is a
textbook example how to make things slow. Of course, it's easy to assume
that all the building blocks we build our desktop off would be
completely independent black boxes, but turns they aren't, and are
deeply integrated these days.
The pixel-scraping approach is the only thing that in the end makes
sense, since you have a very clear idea of what you share, and what you
don't share, and what you share is only at the very very end of what you
do, i.e. the last step of presentation of the app to the user.
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
--devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/de...
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
