Rainer Weikusat <rainerweikusat@???> wrote:

>> I disagree. I've used remote X forwarding many times, and found it ran
>> "quite nicely" with 400kbps upstream from my home ADSL. Obviously it
>> depends what you are doing, and "graphics intensive" stuff slows
>> enormously, but for anything "text and widgets" based it's like being
>> connected locally
>
> Disagreeing with facts is a little pointless. X-over-TCP worked nicely
> for me in a LAN. While the computer I was using remotely was connected
> via 2MBit leased-line, 'ssh -X' worked ok, the compression delivering a
> notable improvement. Going over a 'BT business' DSL-connection required
> more aggressive/ targetted compression (using dxpc) for me to be able to
> use (non-GTK) Emacs running on the remote machine fluently.

Err, aren't *you* now disagreeing with facts ? ;-)

It's a *fact* that I found X via SSH with only 400kbps upstream from the far end quite workable as long as there weren't bitmaps involved. For text work it was "like being there" for me as I remember - can't check now as I don't have an ADSL line, and hardly anything actually running X. I'm a vi person though, so that may well make a difference - how "chatty" is emacs ?

It may also be a *fact* that for you it wasn't an acceptable experience. That doesn't mean that (as you put it) you cannot expect a usable experience with ADSL - and that's leaving aside the different ADSL services, such as those with 1Mbps+ upstream. I suspect some ADSL services may have higher latency than others, which may have a bigger impact on perceived performance than bandwidth.

Perhaps better expressed as "you may or may not be happy with performance if ADSL is involved - depending on your task and your perception of performance". Or just YMMV !
But we're going off-topic now.