10 Oct
2011
10 Oct
'11
3:56 p.m.
On 10/10/11 4:04 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
Errr... that's not quite as obvious as you imply. :)
The web offers massive opportunities for compression, that X11, RDP,
VNC, etc, can't match, in having a client side processing environment
and complete flexibility in data formats...
--T
...
That's too low level for most stuff, as the web has all but proven.
X11 just does not satisfy me as a way to define
a
high-information-content user interface. It's certainly capable of
delivering a high-information-content user interface but it doesn't
define it.
I agree with the latter, but for the former, it does satisfy me. (that's
not to say that I think it should satisfy you) There's really nothing
that can be done on a graphics display that X cannot do in one way or
another, in an almost entirely device- and architecture-independent way.
It's goal is not to "define" user interfaces, but to provide a mechanism
for creating them. The web by itself isn't too fancy but couple
with Javascript, AJAX,
SVG and other high-information-value media of interchange, and boy is
it fun to work in! With just a little care, apps scale up enormously
and deploy with so little effort on my part.
Yes, some of the stuff they're abusing the protocols and bandwidth to do
are pretty impressive. Using them, however, TO ME, feels like riding a
bike with square wheels. X is a pretty "heavy" protocol in terms of
bandwidth utilization, but it's positively miserly when compared to XML
or JSON! You might note I left out many common web
standards as being high
information value.
Noted and agreed!
-Dave