4 ms·

Did you use SSH with X forwarding though?

raverbashing 14y ago
X over SSH in my experience is much harder to configure, and slower Some people claim it depends on adequately configuring X, which may be true, but it's much easier to configure VNC over SSH to have an acceptable performance
- SeppoErviala 14y ago
  I think the main argument for remote X is that it is so easy to use between 2 true X11 environments. You just `ssh -X` to your target and start running programs. On Windows or OSX though... If you were going to install X11 why not skip it and just install VNC?
  - w0utert 14y ago
    Maybe I don't want to run a full X session on my remote machine, just to run a simple X client and have it displayed on my local desktop? VNC is no alternative for running individual applications remotely. Remote desktop != remote X.
    - ansible 14y ago
      That's exactly what 'ssh -X' is for.
      - mercurial 14y ago
        (But tastes much better as 'ssh -XC')
    - raverbashing 14y ago
      True, for one app, ssh -X is usually better Still, most of the time, running only one application is not the usage model. Or it's a simple thing that doesn't need X, just ssh
    - ygra 14y ago
      Remote desktop allows remoting only single applications, though. That's how stuff like the XP mode with Virtual PC on Windows 7 works.
barrkel 14y ago
X protocol remoting is almost never what you want; with the client / server relationship swapped, all[1] the apps that you're running die once you disconnect. If you assume unreliable networking - not rare at all in many remote work scenarios - it's a recipe for frustration. [1] Yes, I know there are exceptions.
- rwmj 14y ago
  Please don't tell me what I "almost never want", considering it's a feature that I do use all the time. My LAN is quite reliable and fast, thanks very much.
  - AnthonBerg 14y ago
    +1 ... X protocol remoting is amazing.
    - slurgfest 14y ago
      Amazing until a connection times out and apps close without being resumable
      - rwmj 14y ago
        On a LAN this doesn't happen unless the power goes down.
      - AnthonBerg 14y ago
        Doesn't happen with NX.
  - goodside 14y ago
    It's not that everybody almost never wants it, it's that almost nobody ever wants it.
  - apendleton 14y ago
    Probably should have been "almost never what one wants," but that's quibbling over English. Even if it were true that there were no mechanism for doing remoting on Wayland (which isn't the case; remoting just moves to a separate layer in the stack, as handled by NX or VNC or whatever), it would still be a reasonable sacrifice, because it's not what most users want. Doing X remoting is the exception, not the rule, and there's no reason for the *nix world to get stuck in the Windows mentality of having to be backwards-compatible with every application and protocol written since the dawn of time. Having a huge networking layer shoved into the middle of the display stack has measurable costs in terms of both maintainability and performance, and users that have any use case other than yours suffer as a result. Android, which is now the most-installed Linux "distribution" (such as it is) ever, had to invent its own display layer because X was a terrifying, bloated hacktastrophe, and they come up with something specific to their platform such that now no other Linux users can benefit from any of their display work. That sucks. Keeping network transparency as a core feature doesn't pass the cost-benefit smell test.

X over SSH in my experience is much harder to configure, and slower Some people claim it depends on adequately configuring X, which may be true, but it's much easier to configure VNC over SSH to have an acceptable performance

SeppoErviala 14y ago
I think the main argument for remote X is that it is so easy to use between 2 true X11 environments. You just `ssh -X` to your target and start running programs. On Windows or OSX though... If you were going to install X11 why not skip it and just install VNC?
- w0utert 14y ago
  Maybe I don't want to run a full X session on my remote machine, just to run a simple X client and have it displayed on my local desktop? VNC is no alternative for running individual applications remotely. Remote desktop != remote X.
  - ansible 14y ago
    That's exactly what 'ssh -X' is for.
    - mercurial 14y ago
      (But tastes much better as 'ssh -XC')
  - raverbashing 14y ago
    True, for one app, ssh -X is usually better Still, most of the time, running only one application is not the usage model. Or it's a simple thing that doesn't need X, just ssh
  - ygra 14y ago
    Remote desktop allows remoting only single applications, though. That's how stuff like the XP mode with Virtual PC on Windows 7 works.

barrkel 14y ago

X protocol remoting is almost never what you want; with the client / server relationship swapped, all[1] the apps that you're running die once you disconnect. If you assume unreliable networking - not rare at all in many remote work scenarios - it's a recipe for frustration. [1] Yes, I know there are exceptions.

rwmj 14y ago
Please don't tell me what I "almost never want", considering it's a feature that I do use all the time. My LAN is quite reliable and fast, thanks very much.
- AnthonBerg 14y ago
  +1 ... X protocol remoting is amazing.
  - slurgfest 14y ago
    Amazing until a connection times out and apps close without being resumable
    - rwmj 14y ago
      On a LAN this doesn't happen unless the power goes down.
    - AnthonBerg 14y ago
      Doesn't happen with NX.
- goodside 14y ago
  It's not that everybody almost never wants it, it's that almost nobody ever wants it.
- apendleton 14y ago
  Probably should have been "almost never what one wants," but that's quibbling over English. Even if it were true that there were no mechanism for doing remoting on Wayland (which isn't the case; remoting just moves to a separate layer in the stack, as handled by NX or VNC or whatever), it would still be a reasonable sacrifice, because it's not what most users want. Doing X remoting is the exception, not the rule, and there's no reason for the *nix world to get stuck in the Windows mentality of having to be backwards-compatible with every application and protocol written since the dawn of time. Having a huge networking layer shoved into the middle of the display stack has measurable costs in terms of both maintainability and performance, and users that have any use case other than yours suffer as a result. Android, which is now the most-installed Linux "distribution" (such as it is) ever, had to invent its own display layer because X was a terrifying, bloated hacktastrophe, and they come up with something specific to their platform such that now no other Linux users can benefit from any of their display work. That sucks. Keeping network transparency as a core feature doesn't pass the cost-benefit smell test.