[Jasper_]

I wrote the linked article explaining X11's internals and design goals in a neutral manner. I've worked on X11 and Xorg ecosystem, worked on the server, I worked on the window managers, the toolkits, applications, compositors, you name it.

I think I'm allowed to have opinions with 40-year hindsight saying that some design decisions have not aged well. I'm not saying X11 is a meme; I'm saying the words "network transparency" ( which never appears once in the documentation; seriously, try to find it https://www.x.org/releases/current/doc/xproto/x11protocol.ht... ) are unhelpful, have unclear motivations and goals, and have a massive restraining influence on what a modern protocol can look like and do.

[mcguire]

Aaahh! I get it now.

Network transparency: you can run a process remotely and see the same interface that you would have seen if you had (or had been able to) run it locally. Nothing more, nothing less. Mostly marketing.

[erik_seaberg]

We're so desperate for network transparency that we're abusing hypertext web browsers as application platforms, because how else can a machine in a datacenter put a GUI on an end user's screen today?

[imtringued]

That's not network transparency. A significant part of the application code is running on the local machine and even if the webserver/API server is turned off there are many applications that work offline and only need a remote connection to download the application itself and sync data periodically.

Your definition of network transparency is so weak even an email client would count as a network transparent application even though 100% of the email client is running on the local machine.

A definition of network transparency that is based around the current behavior of X11 would require you to fully own the remote machine. The remote machine is the real computer that is executing application code and all the display server does is output pixels to a screen and send inputs back to the real machine. When you're using a browser or an email client or a smartphone app the real machine is the device you are holding in your hand, not some server sitting in a data center.

Let me rephrase my point. sshing into a remote machine and running vim there would be considered network transparency. Running vim on your own machine on a mounted NFS share would not be an example of network transparency.

Now transfer this to your web browser argument: How many people are actively receiving control over a google server when they log into gmail? Zero.

[justin66]

> how else can a machine in a datacenter put a GUI on an end user's screen today?

A lot of companies are doing it with Citrix. That's a framework which provides Windows users with what 99% of the Unix users asking for X network transparency are really asking for: the ability to run an app or optionally an entire desktop on the server and have it render locally, where it can be used and controlled. There are some optional file sharing things as well, and audio, etc.

I'm sure the network protocols underneath are appalling, but the product does what people want.