On 06/29/2014 10:13 AM, Mike Gabriel wrote:
> then I have something delicious for you, as well:
Hi Mike,
This will be quite useful to us when it makes it into the stable
version. I have managers who receive multimedia job interviews from
prospective employees as embedded YouTube videos on applicant broker
sites, where the applicant gives his or her sales pitch for themselves.
Fullscreen HD isn't necessary, as it's a job application and not a Star
Wars movie. Good performance on just the standard size YouTube video
should be fine for most business use, I should think. But the more
efficient the better. I think we pay around 10x more for 10mbit than our
employees pay for 55mbit cable in their homes.
It's very nice to see this kind of a push forward in X2GO development.
FreeNX was fantastic. But it was at about the same place when I left it
as it was so many years ago when I first deployed it.
NX really should be a huge priority for the OSS community. But for years
and years, it's remained the greatest killer app that no one knows
about. And I've never understood that.
BTW, did you think it was odd that Keith indicated at Debconf that he
used ssh -C -X over the WAN and was satisfied with it? I tried bringing
up MATE over an ssh connection last night, and ssh -C -X was just as
excruciatingly slow as I remembered it being. Keith was the author of
the LBX (low bandwidth X) many years ago. And he wrote up the first
report I ever read informing us that the real problem with X over a WAN
connection isn't bandwidth. It's latency. And he explained about all the
round trips. He felt he could eliminate 90% of them, IIRC.
About that time I tried remote X over an external modem so that I could
see. It was painful to watch all those requests and responses ping-pong
back and forth on the modem lights. I expected Keith to be really
excited about NX's solution to that problem.
-Steve
_______________________________________________
x2go-user mailing list
x2go-user@lists.x2go.org
http://lists.x2go.org/listinfo/x2go-user
