On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 03:01:33PM -0400, Paul Davis wrote: > On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 12:43 PM, <fons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 03:31:24PM +0000, Rui Nuno Capela wrote: > > > >> first ask why you want more than one qjackctl instance running? > > > > I'm routinely running audio systems consisting of more than > > one machine, with usually all but one headless. And occasionally > > I want to manually verify/modify jack connections on the remote > > machines. So running 'ssh -X somehost qjacktl' is expected to > > work, as it should for any X11 app, and must not depend on > > conditions that don't matter. > > although in theory i agree with you fons, i note that firefox and a > few others from the mozilla stable have realized that with > "heavyweight" X apps, this is not *always* true. I'd agree that expecting to see a YouTube video over a remote X connection is asking for trouble. But apart from that, what could be the problem (assuming the app is not written in some braindead way) ? Anyway this is not the same criterion. Qjackctl *does* work perfectly with a remote X server, and its performance in such conditions is not the reason why only a single instance is allowed on any X server. The point I object to is that the reason that is put forward for doing so doesn't make sense. Ciao, -- FA _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
