Stephan Seitz <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 04:57:28PM +0000, Simon Hobson wrote: >> It's a *fact* that I found X via SSH with only 400kbps upstream from >> the far end quite workable as long as there weren't bitmaps >> involved. For text work it was "like being there" for me as I >> remember - can't check > > Äh, why do you need X11 forwarding for text work? For me text work is > shell/vi/mutt/screen. I’m using these programs daily without the need > for X11 forwarding. > > But for things like thunderbird or wireshark you’ll need a good > network with low latency or it isn’t fun. > > In my experience X11 forwarding is only really working with LAN > connections
That's a non-sequitur: You need more bandwidth than usually available outside of a LAN as soon as you start using "misbehaving applications" (like Firefox or Wireshark) who effectively (by virtue of the toolkit they using) use the X server as "dumb framebuffer manager" they can uploaded pre-rendered bitmaps to. But that's not caused by X but by applications not using it sensibly. As I already wrote, running a graphical non-GTK+ emacs remotely (the Debian package is called emacsNN-lucid, emacs23-lucid for the system I'm currently using, works very nicely. And this includes seriously 'advanced' stuff such that clicking on a URL in a window used by the remotely running editor causes the URL to be 'opened' in a locally running Firefox. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
