| 1 |
On 19/08/2013 22:32, joost@××××××××.org wrote: |
| 2 |
>> X11, well that's another story and probably way off topic. It was |
| 3 |
>> >designed for hardware and architectures that haven't existed for 20+ |
| 4 |
>> >years. Almost all factors that made X11 awesome in the 80s and 90s |
| 5 |
>> >simply are not there anymore. |
| 6 |
> X11 was still really awesome in 2002. When we used remote graphical logons to different machines. |
| 7 |
> It also helped with performance of certain desktop applications. Running the application on a different machine (with better CPU) then the machine I was working at always made people wonder why the same application was performing so badly on theirs ;) |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> But these days. Having fast reliable performance locally is better. With a decent RDP that can connect to an existing desktop without having to set it up as shared from the beginning is more useful. Any ideas on that? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Agreed. I've gotten so used to all that local *GL* goodness that running |
| 13 |
almost any app (except maybe xterm) remotely is just so painful it makes |
| 14 |
me cry... |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I'm also lucky in that when I managed to foist all the oracle with java |
| 17 |
installers off onto some other team of luckless suckers, I was left with |
| 18 |
just the best remote interface ever - ssh and bash. So I can afford to |
| 19 |
be smug :-) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I don't know how to make your RDP problem easier - I treat that the same |
| 22 |
as allow/deny rules for ssh (or any other kind of access really) and |
| 23 |
just accept that sometimes I need to ask first for something to be |
| 24 |
allowed. again, I can afford to be smug here too as the only things I |
| 25 |
need to RDP to are terminals set up for that very purpose and VirtualBox |
| 26 |
VMs (that is one more check box at the create stage). |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 32 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives