On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 16:44, Gian Filippo Pinzari wrote:
> 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 in the X server ML at
> fd.o? That document, that I have seen cited again and
> again, says that SSH is enough to ensure that X over low
> bandwidth links will work acceptably. Once removed the
> roundtrips, of course. The fact you can run X applica-
> tions without the round trips today (as I explained
> in my previous post) and the result is still -slow X
> applications- should be a proof that X over the Internet
> needs something more.
>
> In that docement you say that X doesn't need a specia-
> lized proxy system and a dedicated infrastructure. I
> not only strongly disagree on that, but I have also
> showed with tangible facts (like an OSS software that
> everybody can use) that a specialized proxy system and
> a dedicated infrastructure can do much better than ZLIB
> compression. For example it can disconnect the session
> from the display and reconnect it at later time, as
> we'll do soon in NX.
I don't think the document said that.
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.
>
> In that document you seem to imply that because LBX was
> not as good as it was supposed to be, such a proxy layer
> can't be written. I think that you should reconsider
> that stance. The first step could be looking at the facts.
> You told that you didn't ever have a chance to try NX.
> Do that, please. I think it could really help people
> in the X world to look at X-Window from a different
> perspective. You are a X icon and many people seem to
> trust you more than they trust data ;-).
No, the point of the document (in part) was to put a stake
in the heart of LBX; that much less code to maintain.
The paper succeeds at that (showing that LBX is never better
than SSH).
I'm perfectly happy if other proxies do better; we just
want to kill LBX off, once and for all... And get data
on how/where to work on improving X itself.
- Jim
--
Jim Gettys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
HP Labs, Cambridge Research Laboratory
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
