----- Original Message ----- > On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 14:38 +0100, Moritz Struebe wrote: > > On 2011-03-21 14:27, John A. Sullivan III wrote: > > > Performance in a WAN environment comes immediately to mind. > > > > > > Seriously? You must disable flash, vlc or any other video-support, > > too. > > Oh and don't forget Opera, Chrome, etc, which repaint the screen > > every > > time you scroll..... (BTW: FF is doing it right....) You can easily > > limit bandwidth per user. Then the user can decide between > > responsibility and sound. > > > > > One may > > > also have restrictions about noise in the work place but, if that > > > were > > > the case, one would probably disable the sound devices on the > > > physical > > > computer > > > > ACK! > > > > > - then again, some other user may have a use case where it > > > legitimately makes sense to conform to noise restrictions by > > > configuring > > > the X2Go server - John > > > > No you are generating absurd use-cases. One shouldn't have to use > > x2go > > to enforce this. And then again the right way of doing this is to > > forbid > > remote pulse-audio connections locally! > > > > I have the feeling that these requests are not to support x2go, but > > to > > be able to enforce a business-model (For sound you have to pay 10 > > bucks > > extra). But what do I care, as long as this is optional and having > > such > > a handshake is optional...... > <snip> > Sorry, I disagree but that is a choice of development paradigm. Take > my > advice from whence it comes - I know very little about development > and > the costs associated with it but I do know about managing the end > user > side. To say the user can decide assumes it is a user decision on > one-off installations for savvy users with no central administration. > Now, there may be better ways to disable the transmission of sound > than > via X2Go but, in my limited development experience, I've always tried > to > admit that I may not be able to foresee every possible plausible user > case and thus try to provide more rather than fewer options. > > These are not absurd user cases and they are not fostered by a > business > model (in fact, I really didn't appreciate that comment but I may > have > taken it the wrong way). They are fostered by real world working > experiences where sound may be undesirable. Again, there are > probably > better ways to do this than via X2Go as I mentioned in my original > comment but I cannot foresee all cases and there may be a time when > it > is better to handle it from X2Go. Thanks - John >
IIRC Citrix is able to define by policy whether a user signing is allowed sound or not ... Perhaps they have got their user cases wrong as-well ;) _______________________________________________ X2go-dev mailing list X2go-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/x2go-dev
