3 ms·

Your usecase is actually quite close to mine. Except that NoMachine was the fastest of them all. I didn't try to run Firefox (why? you can proxy and browse loca

Your usecase is actually quite close to mine. Except that NoMachine was the fastest of them all. I didn't try to run Firefox (why? you can proxy and browse locally!), but I had to use it to run software that could only be run on premises. And, basically, anything that was not NX incurred a huge latency that made using it a maddening experience. For me, nxproxy/nxagent is basically the equivalent of mosh compared to SSH. If you have never felt the need to use mosh, then your link is not a high latency one. Note that to my knowledge there is no actual implementation of an RDP server for Linux; they all just send do VNC over RDP (i.e. send bitmaps).

pxc 5y ago
I remember NX being pretty good. I don't really remember why I ended up using Xpra more, but I used it for individual applications. I usually used NX only for full desktop sessions. And I only had whatever version of FreeNX I could get set up server side, which I remember being difficult, so maybe proper NoMachine NX would have been better. I also never really dug into how Xpra used image encoders in its whole process. There's this diagram in the old (probably outdated) docs: https://www.xpra.org/trac/attachment/wiki/DataFlow/Xpra-Data-Flow.png https://www.xpra.org/trac/attachment/wiki/DataFlow/Xpra-Data... It seems more sophisticated to me than just a VNC approach, since it lets you send over the individual windows. There's this note on the current docs: > Choosing which encoding to use for a given window is best left to the xpra engine. It will make this decision using the window's characteristics (size, state, metadata, etc), network performance (latency, congestion, etc), user preference, client and server capabilities and performance, etc I'm not sure if that's more selective or cleverer than NX's approach, or basically the same. I wonder now whether it was latency, bandwidth, or processing power on the client (all we had was IGPUs) that was scarcest for me back then. > For me, nxproxy/nxagent is basically the equivalent of mosh compared to SSH. If you have never felt the need to use mosh, then your link is not a high latency one. I think plain SSH worked fine for me back then, though, so maybe latency was less of a problem for me than it has been for your use cases. Mosh is great though, especially for cellular internet connections.

pxc 5y ago

I remember NX being pretty good. I don't really remember why I ended up using Xpra more, but I used it for individual applications. I usually used NX only for full desktop sessions. And I only had whatever version of FreeNX I could get set up server side, which I remember being difficult, so maybe proper NoMachine NX would have been better. I also never really dug into how Xpra used image encoders in its whole process. There's this diagram in the old (probably outdated) docs: https://www.xpra.org/trac/attachment/wiki/DataFlow/Xpra-Data-Flow.png https://www.xpra.org/trac/attachment/wiki/DataFlow/Xpra-Data... It seems more sophisticated to me than just a VNC approach, since it lets you send over the individual windows. There's this note on the current docs: > Choosing which encoding to use for a given window is best left to the xpra engine. It will make this decision using the window's characteristics (size, state, metadata, etc), network performance (latency, congestion, etc), user preference, client and server capabilities and performance, etc I'm not sure if that's more selective or cleverer than NX's approach, or basically the same. I wonder now whether it was latency, bandwidth, or processing power on the client (all we had was IGPUs) that was scarcest for me back then. > For me, nxproxy/nxagent is basically the equivalent of mosh compared to SSH. If you have never felt the need to use mosh, then your link is not a high latency one. I think plain SSH worked fine for me back then, though, so maybe latency was less of a problem for me than it has been for your use cases. Mosh is great though, especially for cellular internet connections.