Stephan Seitz <stse+devuan@???> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 04:57:28PM +0000, Simon Hobson wrote:
>> 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
>
> Äh, why do you need X11 forwarding for text work? For me text work is
> shell/vi/mutt/screen. I’m using these programs daily without the need
> for X11 forwarding.
>
> But for things like thunderbird or wireshark you’ll need a good
> network with low latency or it isn’t fun.
>
> In my experience X11 forwarding is only really working with LAN
> connections

That's a non-sequitur: You need more bandwidth than usually available
outside of a LAN as soon as you start using "misbehaving applications"
(like Firefox or Wireshark) who effectively (by virtue of the toolkit
they using) use the X server as "dumb framebuffer manager" they can
uploaded pre-rendered bitmaps to. But that's not caused by X but by
applications not using it sensibly.

As I already wrote, running a graphical non-GTK+ emacs remotely (the
Debian package is called emacsNN-lucid, emacs23-lucid for the system I'm
currently using, works very nicely. And this includes seriously
'advanced' stuff such that clicking on a URL in a window used by the
remotely running editor causes the URL to be 'opened' in a locally
running Firefox.