My guess is that someone would have to figure out how to translate all the HTML5 graphics commands to the X11 protocol.
I figure if people did this for vnc & xrdp, it probably isn't too much of a stretch to do this for x11.
Or if they ever get around to replacing X11 with "Wayland" they can just write a Wayland compositor that speaks guacd protocol.
Then it's more X11-to-guacd than anything else.
Oh, yeah, all of that is absolutely true.
Although, the sizing isn't exactly dynamic-dynamic. The initial settings are dynamic, then you have to relog to get new settings.
But, tap F11 before going into the desktop, and it'll be full-screen.
The conventional behavior was for RDP clients to respond to a window resize by seamlessly disconnecting from the server and then reconnecting with the new screen dimensions. The newest version of RDP (the protocol, not a particular implementation) contains a channel command that can handle an explicit resize of the viewport.
Guacamole can handle both modes, but it needs to be told which one you want to use. Obviously on a Windoze server the resize command is only available on the latest versions. I don't know whether Xrdp supports it.
I don't think so, as I didn't see it handle that properly.
Guacamole has changed the way I use my computer. My main monitor is a 24" 1920x1200 (16:10) screen. It now has a browser maximized on it all day long.
I used to have to switch back and forth between the browser window and my terminal window. Now I've got HTML, SSH, RDP, and VNC in one contiguous set of tabs. And since I'm at 1920x1200, I can view a remote 1920x1080 screen without scaling it down, in those cases where the server won't size to the client's screen dimensions.
Text windows are 190x56, which is a *little* excessive, but not so much that I want to shrink them. Nobody writes code in 80 columns anymore, except maybe COBOL programmers.
Obviously this isn't going to transform everyone's workflow, but it's working great for me. Nearly everything I do is on a remote computer somewhere.
HOW MANY FUCKING SERVICE MANAGERS DOES LINUX REQUIRE?
Whenever someone else thinks, "None of these really start my services how I'd like them started... I think I'll make another one," an angel has its wings ripped uncermoniously out of their torso in agony.
Just Fucking Stop It Already.
Oh, that's a gem:
"Note that when openrc-init is used, it must be paired with openrc-shutdown, and *not* the shutdown or reboot commands from other packages, otherwise you will encounter errors."
So not only have you introduced yet another monstrosity for people maintaining setups to ensure, but you're imposing on system administrators who have developed muscle memory for shutdown/reboot a need to remember the oh-so-much-shorter command "openrc-shutdown" because your system is that much better.
It seems as if there was a largely held consensus that sysvinit was aging and had become a liability, since so many different parties have built replacements for it. I guess I'm one of those heretic type people, because I actually like systemd. So I simply hope that eventually we reach a point where systemd becomes the category-killer sysvinit replacement and we can count on it being there. For all practical purposes, ISV's who actually produce software instead of rolling craft beer distributions of Linux in their spare time, only care about Fedora (CentOS, Red Hat) and Debian (Ubuntu). Since both of those lines have already moved to systemd, the debate is essentially over.
Also, I still consider Pluto a real planet.
I kinda don't care what system is used, as long as I don't have to write a ridiculous amount of code to cover all of them.
(Although, upstart earned a place in my spleen for really making things difficult when it was semi-released before being quite ready).
Yeah, well, Ubuntu has tried a bunch of different things to make themselves non-standard. Most of them (Upstart and Unity are two examples) have failed.
It seems they're now making the switch from X11 to Wayland in the current version. Let's see how that works out. It should be interesting.
Heh... I guess they want to be trendsetters, but lack the credentials.
there. For all practical purposes, ISV's who actually produce
software instead of rolling craft beer distributions of Linux in
their spare time, only care about Fedora (CentOS, Red Hat) and Debian
CoreOS might be much more common soon
So not only does CoreOS use systemd, but they have leveraged it as the framework for initializing and running containers.
It seems there's no additional problem here if CoreOS does become more common.