Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 07:00:28 +0100 From: Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Wayland on FreeBSD Message-ID: <20200422070028.30dd2fb16ccae9b6d9cde901@sohara.org> In-Reply-To: <20200422023243.GA81187@neutralgood.org> References: <CAFYkXjmfyLZAi1HZe-RE3wLxa6GRNP6GkmtZG-4T2puRDOz0JA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGLDxTX5EeL3YDUJocdOM03sRzUDi3ed9cKuNH99DieZbrhGHg@mail.gmail.com> <5058973.kMyvyFPq5o@amos> <CAB4989B-95E7-43B6-B338-B9524B9D9FDA@kreme.com> <20200421150741.28dd6309.freebsd@edvax.de> <24223.11679.688616.192643@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <20200422023243.GA81187@neutralgood.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 22:32:43 -0400 "Kevin P. Neal" <kpn@neutralgood.org> wrote: > I thought I read that Wayland considers access over the network to be a > solved problem without having to build it into the lowest levels of the > graphics stack. Remote Desktop, VNC, etc., all give network access. To a desktop not to an application. > What > you miss is intermingling of windows from several machines. But is that > such a common use case that it should be designed for from the start? I use it often enough that I'd miss it, the authors of ssh found it useful enough to add ssh -X and ssh -Y to support using it. So yes I think there's common use of it. It seems there's a waypipe that can achieve this for Wayland, one day if tuits appear I might get round to trying it. > Oh, and is XWayland still a thing? Or the other way around? Yes to both, Xwayland is still a thing and run by default and you can run Wayland as an X client. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200422070028.30dd2fb16ccae9b6d9cde901>