> On Oct 27, 2025, at 11:56, Volker Hilsheimer via Development > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Indeed, at this point it’s fair to say that Qt is not for projects that > heavily depend on X11 remoting over low bandwidth.
For what it's worth, I still occasionally use X11 remotely. So I do wish we would give it some (low) priority to improve. If nothing else: if I want to debug anything on eglfs, my first choice is to use remote X11 to run Creator on the same machine on which I will run the eglfs application. (Of course that requires a decent PC with a lot of RAM these days, and a fast network, which often rules out embedded developers debugging with Creator on the target system. So of course there have to be alternatives like running remote gdb with creator as well: a workaround for all the bloat.) To the extent that Wayland takes over the Linux desktop, who still uses X11 and why? Some will hold out for various reasons (yeah, so far I do that too); but others who generally switch to Wayland might still find remote X11 more useful than the alternatives (vnc or video streaming). So maybe it could turn out that X11 is used proportionally more for that purpose, because it’s being less often used as the main desktop windowing system. So with less demand for gpu-intensive glitz on an X11 desktop, it would be a nice outcome if X11 could go back to the original vision: low bandwidth and let the server do the rendering. When was Qt last known to be really good for that purpose? A lot of years ago, right? During which time, Wayland wasn’t yet mainstream. And wasn’t there always some level of demand for it, during all that time? And then there were those who maybe wanted it but eventually gave up asking… -- Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
