On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, at 2:19pm, Karl J. Runge wrote: >> VNC? Ugh. Doesn't that just ship around a big pixmap of the desktop? >> That would chew up bandwidth a lot more than just running exmh remotely. > > I would guess bandwidth is not the problem, but rather latency.
Karl Runge is on the right track. X is very senstive to latency. The bandwidth requirements can actually be fairly minor for simple constructs (e.g., a GNU Emacs window), but a high-latency link will kill you. As far as VNC goes, yes, it basically ships a big pixmap of the desktop to the remote station. In fact, the VNC protocol is RFB, or "remote frame buffer". However, there are a number of optimizations. Standard (from AT&T) VNC will only send changes to the buffer, and uses run-legth encoding to make solid color blocks go quickly. TightVNC (http://www.tightvnc.com) adds more advanced compression (based on JPEG, I believe), plus client-side mouse handling. It is very usable, even over comparatively low-bandwidth links. I highly recommend it. -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | ***************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *****************************************************************
