[X2Go-Dev] X2Go vs. xrdp

[Heinz-M. Graesing]

Hi Nable,

using X2Go means that you'll need a local X-Server. This X-Server
catches a lot work of display, caching  and input management locally. So
- yes, you'll need more power on the client to run this complete
X-Server even when content ist rendered on serverside.
On the plus side: this is a "near native" (ok, the diff between nxagent
and XOrg is increasing) redirection of Linux displays.

Regards,

Heinz

Am 30.09.2013 22:22, schrieb Nable 80:
>> Furthermore, xrdp encapsulates the VNC protocol
> AFAIK, that's not 100% truth. XRDP has several options (including
> rdp2rdp proxy), personally I use (for most setups) x11rdp + xrdp (Xvnc
> is too resource-consuming), although sometimes (for special setups) I
> use X2Go because of Debian packages (one has to build x11rdp from
> source to get the best recent version) + out-of-box sound forwarding
> support + easy directory sharing + ready thinclient packages.
> 
> Here are some more observations from me: when you have a weak/slow
> client (Vcxsrv and XMing seem to be rather slow on my old laptop with
> WinXP) and heavy server, the xrdp seems to be working better. When you
> have rather powerful client and want to reduce amount of software
> rendering on server-side, X2Go seems to be better. 2developers:
> please, correct me if I'm saying smth wrong, as I don't know much
> about the internals of X11-related software.
> _______________________________________________
> X2Go-Dev mailing list
> X2Go-Dev at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/x2go-dev
>