21 Jun
2013
21 Jun
'13
6:43 a.m.
On Jun 21, 2013, at 7:13 AM, Joachim Thiemann <joachim.thiemann at gmail.com>
wrote:
I use remote X on occasion. But I would not mind ever
having to do so.
Why? While the concept is great, the implementation (on a
protocol/conceptual basis) is crap. Individual windows managed by the
local display manager? This just invites a mess of different special cases
that need to be handled (eg, widgets, pop-ups, modality, pointer
capture..). Oh, and then there are the issues of security, network
interruptions (or changes, such as if you have a laptop), and audio. These
are not insurmountable problems, but adding fixes to X to deal with these
is akin to adding airbags to a horseless carriage.
Far better - and the common solution nowadays - is to have a virtual
persistent framebuffer if you need network transparency. This is what RDP
and VNC do, and from my perspective, do it pretty well; any issues you may
observe in current systems tend to be due to the implementation.
Yes and no; for graphic-heavy things, a remote framebuffer is ideal, since
you'll essentially be duplicating that over X. But for other things,
especially text-heavy UIs, I'll go with X, especially over a slower
connection. The protocol is a lot more lightweight in the general sense.
I've seen some OK optimizations; Windows Remote Desktop is actually a lot
more speedy than I'd expect, even over a distance of several states.
- Dave