> You do. It is far cheaper to put GLX in the server.
If I may digress, I think we want even more stuff to be handled by X.
I'd really like to set up our PCs to dual-boot as Linux X terminals for
those who needs/wants to use our Linux server more efficently (Yeah,
run a Windows X server, right.)
However, it seems such a waste to have these really nice PIIs with gobs
of memory and Millenium IIs and the kitchen sink, just sitting there
drawing lines and displaying bitmaps.
There should probably be X extensions to handle image transformations
(like scaling, dithering, perhaps even direct jpeg/png support?,
filtering, antialiasing), 3d (GLX, right, we got that), mpeg1/mpeg2
playback, as well as support for remote devices (UDB, audio of various
formats, including MIDI, local removable storage [perhaps one could
provide a virtual device file in the users home directory - devfs
anyone?]). And local screensavers - I've experienced screensavers that
did their best to suck CPU and saturate the network at the same time.
Ideally, we should minimize processing on the server (that is, in the X
client programs) and network bandwidth requirements, at the cost of
increased local (X server) processing. If some extension is
unsupported, I guess the client could query the server and fallback to
local processing.
One might argue that all of this isn't X, however I think it makes sense
to at least bundle these protocols/services together, have a standard
authorization scheme, for instance. X does a nice jobs of abstracting
raster displays, keyboards and mice over a network, but we need to
a) access a lot more devices, and
b) utilize local processing power
Well, I *told* you it was a digression.
~kzm
-- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu