On Wed, 2004-07-07 at 10:55, Mike Hearn wrote: > On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 10:00:45 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > (Oh, one question I forgot is whether or not NX is really interesting > > for terminal services. Low bandwidth requirements might only really come > > to the fore for things like connecting to your office machine from home > > or a sysadmin in the head office administering a desktop in a branch > > office. So, on a fast local network does NX really noticeably improve > > the usability of an X terminal?) > > Wouldn't a low bandwidth solution allow you to fit more terminals onto the > same piece of wire without reconfiguring your network? > > I don't know how common that would be, but given that current thick > clients don't use large amounts of bandwidth I'd guess converting them all > to thin clients would place a big load on the wire itself. It'd be nice if > less/no reconfiguration was needed. I'm not saying its completely un-interesting/useless, but the fact that people are happily using large LTSP deployments makes me think that bandwidth isn't a huge issue for people here. On the other hand, the fact that modern X applications make so many X roundtrips may mean that the latency of the network does cause problems and perhaps this makes NX interesting even on fast local networks. I guess I'm wondering does anyone know of any real metrics or anecdotal evidence that would lead one to conclude that something like NX is sufficiently useful for Terminal Services to warrant piling on it in the short term ... Cheers, Mark. -- Fedora-desktop-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-desktop-list
