Suresh wrote:
In the paper Profiling the X Protocol by John Daskin Pat Hanrahan,
Its is given that most X messages trains are less than 100 bytes and since
the TCP/IP protocol adds 48 bytes of header information, this is a bigh
overhead, (and hence he has suggested using Compressed Serial IP over
Jim Gettys wrote:
Lots of useful information can be found in:
http://keithp.com/~keithp/talks/usenix2003/
If we do everything that should be done, we can eliminate
about 90% of the round trips, ultimately.
Hi Jim, did you have the chance of looking at NX since
the last time we discussed this
Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
Has anyone come across X applications re-engineered for low bandwidth networks,
This in the context of thin clients.
Low bandwidth or high latency ?
This is the usual response you can expect when asking
this question. Bandwidth and latency are part of the same
Jim Gettys wrote:
Fixing in a proxy things that can/should be fixed elsewhere
is a bandaid. Bandaids are useful, however; that doesn't
mean we shouldn't fix the X and/or how the X protocol
is being used.
I don't see why, by saying that NX is good, I necessa-
rily would imply that X must not be
David Dawes wrote:
I don't have any objections to doing this on Linux. As I said, we
already do it on a range of other platforms and I'm not sure why
Linux is something of an exception in this regard. Does anyone
have a good reason to not do this?
In NX we use alternate versions of libX11,
From: Gian Filippo Pinzari [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: General discussion about the Xouvert X server [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sunday 07 December 2003 05:05, Herbert Snorrason wrote:
Now the question is: Who won't want it?
PNG is in nearly every way *the* lossless raster format. Nearly everyone
with X
by
ourselves ;-).
Kind regards,
/Gian Filippo Pinzari.
___
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
7 matches
Mail list logo
