Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Xpra: Persistent Remote Applications for X11

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 142 posts

Re: Xpra: Persistent Remote Applications for X11

#121

Post by kragen »

aidenn0 wrote: post #119
kragen wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this sounds like something you can fix with a two-line shell script #!/bin/sh exec /usr/bin/xpra --ssh=ssh "$@"

Since xpra takes a sub-command as the first arg it's more like: : xpra_cmd="$1" shift exec /usr/bin/xpra "$xpra_cmd" --ssh=ssh "$@" And I don't see how that helps with using the GUI (like the comment I replied to). Also, defaults matter.

can't you put the flag before the subcommand? and can't you pass the flag when you launch the gui? i haven't been using it lately so i don't remember

defaults do matter, but defaults can be changed. if it only takes a four-line shell script to change them, they don't matter much

Re: Xpra: Persistent Remote Applications for X11

#122

Post by logicprog »

vundercind wrote: post #60
jrm4 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the risk of threadjacking, I'd still love to have a real conversation about how and why this Wayland thing happened (and is still arguably happening) so badly . Specifically, how -- again, in LINUX-LAND -- a whole bunch of people decided, "nah, we're going to go ahead and break the HELL OUT OF backwards compatibility this time, even though we pretty much never do this."

My best guess is it was designed to make it a bad idea to run anything but Red Hat with Gnome if you need anything resembling stability. If it wasn’t designed for that on purpose, I’m pretty sure it’s at least why Red Hat ran so enthusiastically towards it.

I know I'm going to lose points for pushing back on the pervasive HN RH-bashing, but this doesn't hold up. Wayland is being pushed by Redhat to make GNOME the only stable option? Except that Wayland is perfectly fine (many would argue better than it is under GNOME!) on Sway, KDE, etc. KDE has more bugs than GNOME, but that's independent of Wayland, it's just because KDE's design philosophy is "hardcode every feature and option imaginable" and that leads to it being impossible to QA. Anyway, this is just conspiracy theory bullshit. I swear to god Red Hat is the Soros of Linux for a certain type of guy

Re: Xpra: Persistent Remote Applications for X11

#123

Post by logicprog »

jrm4 wrote: post #49
asveikau wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linux actually does this a lot. Jwz called it "Cascade of Attention-Deficit Teenagers" more than 20 years ago, describing GNOME. Look at audio. PulseAudio is mostly pointless and over-engineered. Breaks a lot. You could say the same about ALSA even. FreeBSD meanwhile is still using the OSS API that Linux was on in the late 90s...

Ha, I'm showing my age. You're right, my brain is still at "Linux around the year 2000." That being said, it's still the same problem. And I think that's why I find it odd that I haven't heard the argument more plainly stated like: "Oh look -- right around when Linux became mainstream, it began to get worse in precisely the same ways proprietary stuff was already bad. Probably a result of more business involvement, b…

Setting aside dogmatic complaints ahout failing to adhere to the purity tests of a hokey old religion from the seventies, in what way is Linux actually worse? Also, assuming you're referring to it getting worse in the usual ways *nix grognards like to complain about, how is any of that "in the same ways proprietary stuff is bad"? If anything Windows for instance leans even more heavily on backwards compatibility than old Linux, not less.

Re: Xpra: Persistent Remote Applications for X11

#124

Post by lostmsu »

hparadiz wrote: post #114
lostmsu wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly you first have to login locally in order to use it. Or has that changed yet?

For now yes. There's only 4 people really working on it. But the most difficult part of it was the stream itself with enough performance for video and gaming at a decent fps and I can say that I was able to play civ vi over it so at this point it's the task of cleaning up the way it works.

Never underestimate the amount of work needed for authorization.

Re: Xpra: Persistent Remote Applications for X11

#125

Post by vundercind »

logicprog wrote: post #122
vundercind wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My best guess is it was designed to make it a bad idea to run anything but Red Hat with Gnome if you need anything resembling stability. If it wasn’t designed for that on purpose, I’m pretty sure it’s at least why Red Hat ran so enthusiastically towards it.

I know I'm going to lose points for pushing back on the pervasive HN RH-bashing, but this doesn't hold up. Wayland is being pushed by Redhat to make GNOME the only stable option? Except that Wayland is perfectly fine (many would argue better than it is under GNOME!) on Sway, KDE, etc. KDE has more bugs than GNOME, but that's independent of Wayland, it's just because KDE's design philosophy is "hardcode every feature…

Watching them a long time, too many coincidences. Looks like fire-and-motion, make yourself the standard then make it hard to deviate or to keep up. If it’s not intentional, it’s incredibly damn convenient.

Re: Xpra: Persistent Remote Applications for X11

#126

Post by rcarmo »

temac wrote: post #91
metadat wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Xrdp is really good. I'm amazed by the quantity of different Linux remote desktop solutions covered in this thread. Is the fragmentation a good sign of a healthy ecosystem?

I find xrdp quite slow esp compared to a Windows RDP server. This is with the xrdp that comes with Debian 12. Maybe newer versions are faster.

Most people don’t realize that the stock config uses xvnc instead of xrdp as a back-end and never change that, or try xorgxrdp-glamor to get GPU acceleration.

Re: Xpra: Persistent Remote Applications for X11

#127

Post by rwmj »

kragen wrote: post #118
rwmj wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PulseAudio has already been abandoned, the new thing is Pipewire. The specific issue with OSS was that it was never part of Linux and then with OSS 4 they made it proprietary, which killed it off entirely as far as Linux users are concerned. (FreeBSD cloned it instead.)

didn't pipewire preserve pulseaudio compatibility though?

It did, so I can still use pavucontrol.

Re: Xpra: Persistent Remote Applications for X11

#128

Post by throwaway1985s »

darau1 wrote: post #2

The description makes me think this can reproduce a cool workflow demonstration I saw a few years ago on reddit[1]. [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/unixporn/comments/k1eu0n/durden_wor...

It has been taken much further since:

https://arcan-fe.com/2023/11/18/a12-visions-of-the-fully-net...

The actual project work is also sponsored by NLnet and received new grants:

https://nlnet.nl/project/Arcan-A12-directory/ https://nlnet.nl/project/Arcan-A12-tools/

Re: Xpra: Persistent Remote Applications for X11

#129

Post by [deleted] »

vundercind wrote: post #125
logicprog wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know I'm going to lose points for pushing back on the pervasive HN RH-bashing, but this doesn't hold up. Wayland is being pushed by Redhat to make GNOME the only stable option? Except that Wayland is perfectly fine (many would argue better than it is under GNOME!) on Sway, KDE, etc. KDE has more bugs than GNOME, but that's independent of Wayland, it's just because KDE's design philosophy is "hardcode every feature…

Watching them a long time, too many coincidences. Looks like fire-and-motion, make yourself the standard then make it hard to deviate or to keep up. If it’s not intentional, it’s incredibly damn convenient.

[deleted]

Re: Xpra: Persistent Remote Applications for X11

#130

Post by logicprog »

vundercind wrote: post #125
logicprog wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know I'm going to lose points for pushing back on the pervasive HN RH-bashing, but this doesn't hold up. Wayland is being pushed by Redhat to make GNOME the only stable option? Except that Wayland is perfectly fine (many would argue better than it is under GNOME!) on Sway, KDE, etc. KDE has more bugs than GNOME, but that's independent of Wayland, it's just because KDE's design philosophy is "hardcode every feature…

Watching them a long time, too many coincidences. Looks like fire-and-motion, make yourself the standard then make it hard to deviate or to keep up. If it’s not intentional, it’s incredibly damn convenient.

Why do any of these standards make it harder for other distributions and desktop environments to keep up with them? wlroots exists, and in many people's minds is much better than GNOME with Wayland. This really strange thinking.

Also, it isn't them that are making them the standard. It's independent distributions choosing to use what they produce (and not all of them do, either). Presumably, the maintainers and packagers who make those choices would be aware of these technical considerations, and capable of rejecting Red Hat's tech I'm favor of whatever hoary stack you prefer if it made it harder for them to "keep up." That seems to be something that is perfectly possible to do while still producing a usable distro, and it seems like something limit distributions are quite good at — ignoring what corporate operating systems are doing and forging their own path. Maybe it's because the technologies you are labeling as Red Hat technologies actually offer substantial improvements and push forward the cutting edge of the Linux desktop in a meaningful way, bringing it closer to the capabilities of a modern operating system?

Post reply on HN