29 Oct
2009
29 Oct
'09
5:55 p.m.
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 03:01:33PM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 12:43 PM,
<fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote:
I'd agree that expecting to see a YouTube video over a
remote X connection is asking for trouble. But apart
from that, what could be the problem (assuming the app
is not written in some braindead way) ?
Anyway this is not the same criterion. Qjackctl *does* work
perfectly with a remote X server, and its performance in such
conditions is not the reason why only a single instance is
allowed on any X server. The point I object to is that the
reason that is put forward for doing so doesn't make sense.
Ciao,
--
FA
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 03:31:24PM +0000, Rui
Nuno Capela wrote:
although in theory i agree with you fons, i note that firefox and a
few others from the mozilla stable have realized that with
"heavyweight" X apps, this is not *always* true. first ask why you want more than one qjackctl
instance running?
I'm routinely running audio systems consisting of more than
one machine, with usually all but one headless. And occasionally
I want to manually verify/modify jack connections on the remote
machines. So running 'ssh -X somehost qjacktl' is expected to
work, as it should for any X11 app, and must not depend on
conditions that don't matter.