35 lines
1.2 KiB
HTML
35 lines
1.2 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: Who Doesn't Need LBX?</TITLE>
|
|
<LINK HREF="LBX-5.html" REL=next>
|
|
<LINK HREF="LBX-3.html" REL=previous>
|
|
<LINK HREF="LBX.html#toc4" REL=contents>
|
|
</HEAD>
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
<A HREF="LBX-5.html">Next</A>
|
|
<A HREF="LBX-3.html">Previous</A>
|
|
<A HREF="LBX.html#toc4">Contents</A>
|
|
<HR>
|
|
<H2><A NAME="s4">4. Who Doesn't Need LBX?</A></H2>
|
|
|
|
<P>LBX is useless, of course, if you're only running applications
|
|
locally, or if you're not running X at all.
|
|
<P>Also, if you're running on a fast LAN, LBX won't be much help. Some
|
|
people say "if LBX cuts down on network traffic, wouldn't it be good to
|
|
use even on fast LANs?" It might be, if your goal is to reduce network
|
|
traffic. But if your goal is to get better response time LBX probably
|
|
isn't what you want. Although it does introduce caching and
|
|
compression, that comes at a cost on both ends (extra memory for
|
|
caching, and extra CPU for decompression). If your link is fairly
|
|
speedy LBX will probably result in an overall slowdown.
|
|
<P>
|
|
<P>
|
|
<HR>
|
|
<A HREF="LBX-5.html">Next</A>
|
|
<A HREF="LBX-3.html">Previous</A>
|
|
<A HREF="LBX.html#toc4">Contents</A>
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
</HTML>
|