s?ndagen den 1 augusti 2004 04.51 skrev Joe Hartley: > On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 20:20:22 -0400 > > Chris Pickett <chris.pickett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Malcolm Baldridge wrote: > > > Unless our terminologies are reversed: I usually refer to the X > > > "server" side to be the remote, and the "display client" to be the > > > "local". My apologies if we're talking about it from opposite sides. > > > > The X server is what you have on your machine. It handles display > > requests from client applications (possibly run remotely). > > > > At least, that's my limited understanding of how it's meant to work. > > Chris has it correct, which often seems bass-ackwards to the way people > think of client/server stuff. The X server is what's running on the > machine with the display. The client app runs remotely (usually on a > server, complicating the terminology!) and displays on the server. > > I'm coming in late to the conversation, but I absolutely agree that > while it's easier and more secure to remotely display X audio apps over > ssh, the processing power is often unacceptably high. At times I've run soundapps over VNC with great results. Infact, running VNC to the local machine does infact improve lowlatency behaviour. Probably due to hardware acceleration being basically disabled. But, VNC has one big drawback, it can at the moment only export whole displays, not separate programs. Integration wise it sucks. Though I think I read somewhere that VNC (or possible tightvnc) is going to support separate apps soon...?! /Robert -- http://spamatica.se/music/
