On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:38:15PM +0100, m_maass wrote:
> have you consider x2go? For me it is perfect.
The Debian instructions on
http://wiki.x2go.org/doku.php/doc:installation:x2goserver say to
install x2goserver and x2goserver-xsession.
But Devuan jessie provides
x2goclient, x2goplugin, x
have you consider x2go? For me it is perfect.
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Brad Campbell writes:
> On 13/03/16 20:36, Brad Campbell wrote:
>
>> I've snipped the remainder of your un-informed rant.
>>
>
> Never the less, tightvnc works a hell of a lot better over super low
> bandwidth links than I've ever managed to get out of RDP or straight
> remote X. Plus, none of the
Brad Campbell writes:
> On 13/03/16 00:48, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>> Brad Campbell writes:
>>> On 08/03/16 04:41, Simon Hobson wrote:
VNC is lousy over anything but a very fast link, it's just a remote
framebuffer - anything painted to the screen is bit copied to the
client wh
On 13/03/16 20:36, Brad Campbell wrote:
I've snipped the remainder of your un-informed rant.
Sorry, that was un-called for.
Never the less, tightvnc works a hell of a lot better over super low
bandwidth links than I've ever managed to get out of RDP or straight
remote X. Plus, none of the
On 13/03/16 00:48, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
Brad Campbell writes:
On 08/03/16 04:41, Simon Hobson wrote:
VNC is lousy over anything but a very fast link, it's just a remote
framebuffer - anything painted to the screen is bit copied to the
client which is bandwidth intensive.
Whereas tightvnc
Brad Campbell writes:
> On 08/03/16 04:41, Simon Hobson wrote:
>>
>> VNC is lousy over anything but a very fast link, it's just a remote
>> framebuffer - anything painted to the screen is bit copied to the
>> client which is bandwidth intensive.
>
> Whereas tightvnc works quite well over almost an
On 08/03/16 04:41, Simon Hobson wrote:
VNC is lousy over anything but a very fast link, it's just a remote framebuffer
- anything painted to the screen is bit copied to the client which is bandwidth
intensive.
Whereas tightvnc works quite well over almost anything, and if you are
willing to
Stephan Seitz wrote:
> 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.
I don't, but sometimes it just happens that way.
> And as far as I was told things like VNC or RDP are an
On 03/07/2016 08:57 PM, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 06:50:26PM +, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>> 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 effec
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 06:50:26PM +, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
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
Stephan Seitz writes:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 04:57:28PM +, 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
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 04:57:28PM +, 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 ne
Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>> 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'
14 matches
Mail list logo
