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.
--
======================================================================
Joe Hartley - UNIX/network Consultant - jh@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa
