Re: x11 instead of aqua
Re: x11 instead of aqua
- Subject: Re: x11 instead of aqua
- From: Gareth Eason <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 16:37:26 +0100
If you want to do something similar with Mac OS X, try OSXvnc (VNC for Mac)
I use this to get my windows and Apple desktops to appear on my Linux
workstation, which is where I do all my 'work' from. Saves me switching
between keyboards and mice and monitors and using KVMs and whatnot.
Regards,
-->Gar
Wolf Schweitzer wrote:
A colleague started Gimp on my G4 / dual proc. 1.25 GHz / 2 GB RAM, while
sitting at his Linux portable computer, as X-windows client. That means, the
application runs on the G4, and serves the display output to the X-client. He
said he'd never seen Gimp start THAT fast ...
So, X is no stopgap!
If you install Matlab on a Mac with lots of memory, you can use X windows to
run a couple of Matlabs, on that particular Mac, from any other Mac with X11.
That means, you can run Matlab with a full 8 GB RAM access (soon, hopefully),
while sitting at an iMac with 512 MB RAM, and still work as if things were
going on on your own computer. And you can have more than one person do that
and take advantage of that workstation that you bought.
I believe you can't do that with Aqua. If you start an application using Mac
OS X filesharing, the application ends up running on the 'client' rather than
the host, and it also does not necessarily run very fast.
Basically, X is something different, and I'm happy it's on Mac OS X :-)
Wolf.
---
from http://www.x.org/X11_protocol.html:
The X Protocol defines a client-server relationship between an application and
its display. To meet this the application (called an X client) is divorced
from the display (known as the X server). X further provides a common
windowing system by specifying both a device dependent and an independent
layer, and basing the protocol on an asynchronous network protocol for
communication between an X client and X server. In effect, the X Protocol
hides the peculiarities of the operating system and the underlying hardware.
This masking of architectural and engineering differences simplifies X client
development and provides the springboard for the X Window System's high
portability.
---
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 22:01:54 -0700, x11-users-request wrote
From: Patrick Coskren <email@hidden>
Speaking personally, I tend to see the X11 stuff as a stopgap. For
a technical app with an X11 interface, I'd use it and be happy to
have it. (See MATLAB, or NEURON.) But the instant a competitor
came along with a native interface, phwoop, I'd be gone. So I'd see
it as more of a competitive advantage than an essential requirement.
For non-technical apps, I agree with Eric. You'd be relegating
yourself to a "power-user" audience.
-Patrick
_______________________________________________
x11-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/x11-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
_______________________________________________
x11-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/x11-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.