Simon Hobson <[email protected]> writes: [...]
> 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 Disagreeing with facts is a little pointless. X-over-TCP worked nicely for me in a LAN. While the computer I was using remotely was connected via 2MBit leased-line, 'ssh -X' worked ok, the compression delivering a notable improvement. Going over a 'BT business' DSL-connection required more aggressive/ targetted compression (using dxpc) for me to be able to use (non-GTK) Emacs running on the remote machine fluently. This will obviously vary depending on the bandwidth that's actually available but the rule-of-thumb is that X will work well over a network with 1MBit or more up and down. NB: 'Work well' is supposed to mean that one can't usually tell which applications are running locally and which remotely (except by knowing, of course). _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
