I wrote: Comparing dxpc with "ssh -X -C", ssh achieves fewer bytes ...
Is that because dxpc uses LZO compression, while ssh uses zlib (==gzip), and LZO is known to have better speed but provide less compression? Or is it because it would be better to forget about the intricacies of the X protocol and caching, and just compress all traffic as ssh does? (Philosophical, rhetorical questions.) - Pity that ssh does not have a "dxpc mode" so I could try easily. --- Another thing I would like is a "-d random" option. As things stand, on a busy (staff login) server I need to pick a "-d N" value that is unused (with port N+6000 not in use yet); it is somewhat "slow" to try, read back the output of dxpc and maybe re-try; seems more efficient for dxpc to try a range of ports and report the one chosen. Ah, wishlists... Cheers, Paul Paul Szabo p...@maths.usyd.edu.au http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/u/psz/ School of Mathematics and Statistics University of Sydney Australia -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
