Teodoro Santoni <[email protected]> wrote: >> What did they replace X11 forwarding with? (I shudder to ask) > > Nothing afaik.
That would be the "we don't use it, therefore we don't care if anyone else uses it - we'll just declare it broken behaviour and drop it" approach to backwards compatibility. Rainer Weikusat <[email protected]> wrote: >> Is that what I get with ssh -X? I've noticed it's sometimes quite klunky. > > ssh -X is basically 'straight X' but with the protocol traffic > transparently forwarded over the SSH connection and some convenience > features like "setting up a suitable DISPLAY" and > "handling MIT magic cookie authentication". > > For this to work well (for applications where there's any hope that it > could work well), the remote system needs to have good upstream > bandwidth to "the internet" which will usually not be the case if ADSL > is being used. I disagree. I've used remote X forwarding many times, and found it ran "quite nicely" with 400kbps upstream from my home ADSL. Obviously it depends what you are doing, and "graphics intensive" stuff slows enormously, but for anything "text and widgets" based it's like being connected locally - that's the power of passing the instructions (draw me a box with these settings) vs passing the result (draw this rectangular array of pixels). I also used to use VNC based connections (remote admin of my Mac), and yes, that was "quite slow" - as in being able to do something and then watch the screen update in bands, even with bandwidth saving features (small display, limited bit depth) turned on. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
