19 Aug
2011
19 Aug
'11
5:11 p.m.
On 08/19/2011 05:03 PM, Ethan Dicks wrote:
Doc didn't suggest Windows..
No he did not, but I wanted to short circuit any answers resembling
"because VNC is easier to get working on Windows than X" type answers.
Ahh ok, good thinking. It isn't, but I suspect you know that. ;)
Honestly,
with most any SPARC system, VNC is Your Friend.
Why is that better than X? I really do want to know why VNC is better than X -
specifically in
the environment of sitting on a machine that's already running an X
server and firing off X client programs on a SPARC box. What does VNC
get me that X doesn't? i.e. - why would I want to load something
that's not included out of the box. What's the payoff?
The relatively bad bus bandwidth combined with the lackluster
performance of the video hardware that is supported on that machine will
result in pretty miserable interactive performance.
Of course sitting in front of a machine that's already running X and
displaying stuff back to it from the Ultra5 is the right way to do
things, but Windows has really dumbed down the real world of graphical
user interfaces so everyone seems to think "remote GUI" means
"brute-forcedly copying the entire 'screen' (whether it exists or not)
to another host". (no offense intended to the rabid Windows folk
here...I'll save that for another day ;))
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL