Re: VNC server based on kdrive using damage extension?

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Jaymz Julian wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 11:02:51PM +0000, Mike MacCana wrote:
> > On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 14:17 -0500, Bruce Bauman wrote:
> > > We would like to build a lightweight X server which will operate
> > > "headless". The only display device will be a remote VNC device.
> >
> > Why use VNC for this? The X protocol is already capable of proving en
> > entire remote desktop on a distant PC.
> >
> > (One answer could be: you have lots of Windows clients, and unlike
> > Linux / Unix / MacOS, Windows doesn't come with an X display server).
>
> Because while X is good^Wvagely acceptable at remotey viewing a set of single
> windows over a medium bandwidth connection, it's horrifically bad dealing with
> entire desktops, especially over low-medium bandwidth connections?

> admittedly some of the x protocol
> compression packages do make this somewhat possible,

You've answered yourself here. It seems far too often people
take X as is without any protocol compression. There's some
brilliant stuff that's been done in the last few years, some of
which make X quite fast over thin pipes - particularly MLView DXPC.

> I cannot even begin to explain how much of a horrifically bad solution
> to the problem this is.  Replacing VNC with X is just as bad as replacing X
> with VNC.  See "right tool for the job".

I think yaking something already displayed with one protocol and piping it
through another because one impression of X compression techniques is
based on ancient techniques is pretty damn horrible myself.

Mike