4 ms·

I routinely use modern X applications running on a remote (25 miles) machine, all day long as part of my job. It works flawlessly if you have a reasonable amou

by jleahy 6y ago

I routinely use modern X applications running on a remote (25 miles) machine, all day long as part of my job. It works flawlessly if you have a reasonable amount of bandwidth and reasonable latency. Sure, it doesn’t work over dial-up.

MayeulC 6y ago
Honestly, X forwarding doesn't work that well in my experience, unless you have a very stable connection, with quite a bit of bandwidth (~1Mbps at the very least). I've had more success using xpra for forwarding, as I'm often connecting over Wi-Fi (hostel, campus rooms...). It's also rather complicated to set-up on the server side (xauth, magic cookie, etc). waypipe, on the other hand, was a breeze to use, even though it's very young. I tried with Firefox and 500Mbps of upload capacity, it worked fine as long as the window wasn't too large.
- ajsnigrutin 6y ago
  > It's also rather complicated to set-up on the server side (xauth, magic cookie, etc). you mean "ssh -Y user@host..."?
  - MayeulC 6y ago
    No, that is the client side. I went back and looked at the documentation, I was wrong and conflated two ways of doing it: - X forwarding over SSH: this only requires changing X11Forwarding in OpenSSH sshd's config - Plain X over network, which is secured with `xhost`, insecure, and needs transfering the magic cookie or other authentication information So, not nearly as complex to setup as I recalled, though it's much simpler to run a nested wayland compositor (which waypipe does) than a X11 server (which xpra does). The difference between X11 and Wayland remote access thins when xpra is involved. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37157097/how-does-x11-authorization-works-mit-magic-cookie https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37157097/how-does-x11-au...
  - bromonkey 6y ago
    that would be the client side
- sokoloff 6y ago
  To me, it’s been a while since 1Mbps was “quite a bit of bandwidth”, even for WAN connections.
  - hansvm 6y ago
    Outside of major metros, in the US a lot of towns only offer up to 5Mbps down, and only then if you pay out the nose. Not sure if it matters for X forwarding, but upload caps are also ridiculously low even on otherwise reasonable connections.
    - MayeulC 6y ago
      Pretty much this. With 5 Mbps down on ADSL, you can expect 300 to 500 kbps up. It can be hard to remote connect home under those conditions.
- MayeulC 6y ago
  > tried with Firefox and 500Mbps of upload capacity That should have been 500 kbps
kllrnohj 6y ago
Of course it does, just like video-based remote desktop systems work great these days. That's the point, X's claimed advantages here long since stopped existing, and nobody noticed because the "inferior" approach is perfectly fine with modern internet connectivity.

by jleahy 6y ago

MayeulC 6y ago

Honestly, X forwarding doesn't work that well in my experience, unless you have a very stable connection, with quite a bit of bandwidth (~1Mbps at the very least). I've had more success using xpra for forwarding, as I'm often connecting over Wi-Fi (hostel, campus rooms...). It's also rather complicated to set-up on the server side (xauth, magic cookie, etc). waypipe, on the other hand, was a breeze to use, even though it's very young. I tried with Firefox and 500Mbps of upload capacity, it worked fine as long as the window wasn't too large.

ajsnigrutin 6y ago
> It's also rather complicated to set-up on the server side (xauth, magic cookie, etc). you mean "ssh -Y user@host..."?
- MayeulC 6y ago
  No, that is the client side. I went back and looked at the documentation, I was wrong and conflated two ways of doing it: - X forwarding over SSH: this only requires changing X11Forwarding in OpenSSH sshd's config - Plain X over network, which is secured with `xhost`, insecure, and needs transfering the magic cookie or other authentication information So, not nearly as complex to setup as I recalled, though it's much simpler to run a nested wayland compositor (which waypipe does) than a X11 server (which xpra does). The difference between X11 and Wayland remote access thins when xpra is involved. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37157097/how-does-x11-authorization-works-mit-magic-cookie https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37157097/how-does-x11-au...
- bromonkey 6y ago
  that would be the client side
sokoloff 6y ago
To me, it’s been a while since 1Mbps was “quite a bit of bandwidth”, even for WAN connections.
- hansvm 6y ago
  Outside of major metros, in the US a lot of towns only offer up to 5Mbps down, and only then if you pay out the nose. Not sure if it matters for X forwarding, but upload caps are also ridiculously low even on otherwise reasonable connections.
  - MayeulC 6y ago
    Pretty much this. With 5 Mbps down on ADSL, you can expect 300 to 500 kbps up. It can be hard to remote connect home under those conditions.
MayeulC 6y ago
> tried with Firefox and 500Mbps of upload capacity That should have been 500 kbps

kllrnohj 6y ago

Of course it does, just like video-based remote desktop systems work great these days. That's the point, X's claimed advantages here long since stopped existing, and nobody noticed because the "inferior" approach is perfectly fine with modern internet connectivity.