Remote desktop vs. remote display
Posted Feb 13, 2013 23:49 UTC (Wed) by khim
In reply to: Remote desktop vs. remote display
Parent article: LCA: The ways of Wayland
However I don't think even those tools allow the same level of flexibility as X. For example, I have a system at work and I run Emacs on it and do all my work. When I get home I can ssh into my work system and ask my existing Emacs instance to open a new window on my display at home. All my buffers are right there just as I left them, and all aspects of the window work as if it were local (cut/paste, menus, etc.)
And I can connect to my work system and use the same windows in Visual Studio with "all aspects of the window work as if it were local".
Obviously Emacs had to provide some support for this itself, but it requires no special add-ons or third party integration.
And this nicely shows the difference between Windows approach (everything works out-of-the box for 99% of usecases without any help from application developers) and X approach (we have this ultranice solution which can do everything in theory, but fails in 99% of cases in practice).
Sorry, but I regard RDP as "basically usable solution" and "X network transparency" as half-working experiment at best. It fails in all cases where I actually need it. Either I need to use only one of the very few programs which can show all the nice properties of "X network transparency" or I need to do something in advance and suffer even if you don't really need to use this "transparency" in this particular session.
to post comments)