Xlibre

> ssh is nowadays a common piece of infrastructure with multiple uses, so it can be assumed to be available. Rather like sh, ls, cat etc. Waypipe is specialised, complex, and has a ton of dependencies.

So... [random X11 application] isn't specialized, complex, with a ton of dependencies? I mean, if you're trying to run an X11 application remotely, you're going to need at minimum full client xlib+whatever else on one side, and an running xserver+whatever else on the other side. In other words, by definition, both sides need to have everything necessary to run said application, and *all of it* is outside the scope of what ssh provides (ie a forwarded TCP connection)

Along that line, nothing prevents [Portable] OpenSSH adding support for wrapping waypipe, eg by adding -W and associated configuration options. There's plenty of precedence, not just with X11 (via -X) and various authentication agents but also things like scp/sftp which work by forking off separate executables (on both sides) and shuffling data between the two.

(I would also point out that openssh's -X option claims to support interacting with X11 "Security extensions" by default; I don't know exactly what that entails under the hood but it's clearly more than just setting up a port forward and setting $DISPLAY on the remote side)

Of course, OpenSSH (not just ssh, but very specifically OpenSSH) is going to be more widely available than Waypipe, simply by virtue of being an older and more established technology (as well as historical precedent). However, we weren't discussing that:

>> <...> With X11, you get the functionality out of the box. <...>

What we were discussing is that both are structurally *third-party software*. There is nothing conceptually "out-of-the-box" about `ssh -X`, not any more than Waypipe. Whether the latter is significantly more specialized and complex is in the eye of the beholder.

> X11 remoting has worked well for my needs

Nobody was disputing that. We were talking about whether it actually is a "killer feature".

> Is there a replacement for XPRA?
>
> I still use ssh -X for some very graphically-limited apps - xterm mostly - but for anything using a modern toolkit you really need XPRA to get good performance.

Waypipe does not need anything like Xpra to get good performance; you get it by default.

> And the persistence / immunity to transient network issues/moves is a nice bonus in some cases

There is no persistence, however. Earlier versions of Waypipe had rudimentary support for reconnection, but it was since dropped — not sure why, perhaps lack of interest on the sole developer's part.

I think in other cases with Wayland the compositors just support RDP or VNC output, VNC being slow but simple and RDP working well over WAN links with various acceleration options available in the protocol (maybe including just encoding as a video stream, same as any modern WebRTC video conferencing and desktop sharing system) if the server takes advantage of them, degrading to something like VNC if not. I think Waypipe is more for the single-app forwarding use case (although I believe RDP protocol is capable of single-app forwarding), and I'd be super happy when it gets integrated directly into Portable OpenSSH or as a Linux-distro maintained extension for the popular platforms.

Well there is wprs (xpra for wayland): https://github.com/wayland-transpositor/wprs

I use it as my daily driver and while it has its issues it is workable...

I have filed some bug reports and some of them have been fixed.