Why care about indirect rendering ?

[Matthieu Herrb]

Clemens Eisserer wrote:
> Hi there,
> 
> 
>>X uses a network protocol.  While I love the network transparency and
>>wouldn't lose it for anything it doesn't mean you want it when you're
>>local.  In fact you want as little as you reasonably can between the
>>application and the video card.  That's in part why I find this
>>indirect-rendering centered discussion so strange.
> 
> 
> This is something I also never really understood. X forces you to go
> through the network protocol even for drawing also if you're local.
> Windows allows to plug-in a network-layer if you need it (however far
> less professional than X).
> Sure, Unix Domain Sockets are highly optimized - but at least parsing
> out all the trafic should be quite expensive? Or am I completly wrong?

If your rendering architecture relies on direct hardware access and 
can't handle the higher latency introduced by the client/server 
protocol, you push the remote clients into some second class quality level.
This is already what happens with RDP or VNC (even with NX, even though 
the loss is less important). This is not X anymore.
-- 
Matthieu Herrb
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4033 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20050902/11388bbe/attachment.bin>