old-www/HOWTO/LBX-11.html

108 lines
3.8 KiB
HTML

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="SGML-Tools 1.0.9">
<TITLE>The LBX Mini-HOWTO: Alternatives</TITLE>
<LINK HREF="LBX-10.html" REL=previous>
<LINK HREF="LBX.html#toc11" REL=contents>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
Next
<A HREF="LBX-10.html">Previous</A>
<A HREF="LBX.html#toc11">Contents</A>
<HR>
<H2><A NAME="s11">11. Alternatives</A></H2>
<P>If you don't like <CODE>lbxproxy</CODE> for some reason: you're not
satisfied with the performance, it doesn't work for you, you don't want
to hassle with creating an lbxproxy for the remote host, or you simply
are interested in trying other options, there is at least one other
package for X protocol compression (anyone have others?)
<P>
<H2><A NAME="ss11.1">11.1 dxpc - The Differential X Protocol Compressor</A>
</H2>
<P>
<UL>
<LI>Original Author:
<A HREF="mailto:brianp@cnet.com">Brian Pane &lt;brianp@cnet.com&gt;</A></LI>
<LI>Current Maintainer:
<A HREF="mailto:lightborn@mail.utexas.edu">Zachary Vonler &lt;lightborn@mail.utexas.edu&gt;</A></LI>
</UL>
<P><CODE>
<A HREF="http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~zvonler/dxpc/">dxpc</A></CODE> works in essentially the same way as LBX. However, to
avoid having to implement an X extension and modify the X server code,
<CODE>dxpc</CODE> uses <B>two</B> proxies: one that runs on the REMOTE host, like
<CODE>lbxproxy</CODE>, and one that runs on the LOCAL host.
<P>The REMOTE host proxy communicates between the X clients and the
LOCAL host proxy, and the LOCAL host proxy communicates between
the X server and the REMOTE host proxy.
<P>So, to <EM>both</EM> the X clients and the X server, it looks like X
protocol as usual.
<P>
<H3>Advantages</H3>
<P>
<UL>
<LI> Since it's a completely separate application that does not
require any X internals, it's <EM>much</EM> simpler to compile and
install.
</LI>
<LI> It's maintained separately, so you don't have to wait for the
OSF to release new X versions for enhancements or fixes.
</LI>
<LI> It provides more and better compression information and
statistics than <CODE>lbxproxy</CODE>.</LI>
</UL>
<P>
<H3>Disadvantages</H3>
<P>
<UL>
<LI> It is not a standard part of X; you must obtain and build it
separately.
</LI>
<LI> It is slightly more complex to set up, since it requires a
LOCAL-side proxy as well as the REMOTE proxy.</LI>
</UL>
<P>
<H3>Where Can I Get dxpc?</H3>
<P>The source for dxpc is available at
<A HREF="ftp://ftp.x.org/contrib/utilities/">ftp.x.org</A>.
<P>There is a WWW homepage for dxpc that gives a lot of good
information, including pointers to the dxpc mailing list, access to the
source code, and a number of pre-built binaries for various platforms:
<P>
<A HREF="http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~zvonler/dxpc/">http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~zvonler/dxpc/</A><P>
<H2><A NAME="ss11.2">11.2 Ssh (Secure Shell)</A>
</H2>
<P>
<A HREF="mailto:lbxhowto@sizone.org">Ken Chase &lt;lbxhowto@sizone.org&gt;</A>
notes that <CODE>
<A HREF="http://www.cs.hut.fi/ssh/">ssh</A></CODE> can
be used for compression. Although its main purpose is to provide
security, it also compresses the data it sends.
<P>Thus, if you run X over a <CODE>ssh</CODE> link you will automatically obtain
some amount of compression.
<P>
<H2><A NAME="ss11.3">11.3 Which Is Better?</A>
</H2>
<P>I don't know. Both LBX and <CODE>dxpc</CODE> are certainly better at raw
compression than <CODE>ssh</CODE>. Of course, <CODE>ssh</CODE> provides the added
advantage of security. And of course, there's no reason you can't use
both <CODE>ssh</CODE> and one of the other two, to get good compression and
security.
<P>It shouldn't be hard to run some benchmarking against these options
and get both subjective and statistical measurings of performance. But
I haven't done this, and I don't know of anyone who has.
<P>
<HR>
Next
<A HREF="LBX-10.html">Previous</A>
<A HREF="LBX.html#toc11">Contents</A>
</BODY>
</HTML>