Re: [gtk-vnc-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Optimizations for high-latency X connections

[Daniel P. B. <ber...@re...>]

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 07:46:37PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> > Hi, everyone,
> >
> > I mentioned in #virt a few weeks ago that I was working on making
> > gtk-vnc be nominally as fast as TightVNC.  This came out from an
> > Important Customer(tm) who wanted to use virt-viewer, but who found it
> > to be too slow.
> >
> > It turns out that they were on a crazy setup with a high-latency remote
> > X connection.  My patches implement some tricks from TightVNC to handle
> > such connections:
> >   
> 
> Can I ask, why in the world is your Important Customer(tm) forwarding 
> gtk-vnc over SSH via X instead of doing VNC over X?  That would solve 
> all of these problems.

The former is securely authenticated and encryption, the latter is often
not - unless using the GTK-VNC + QEMU  VeNCrypt extension, but I can well
imagine there's plenty of people who don't do that, particularly if they
are a SSH GSSAPI+Kerberos enabled environment.

Both are valid deployment use cases and we shouldn't presume one vs the
other, although obviously we can make recommendations.

Daniel
-- 
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London   -o-   http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org  -o-  http://virt-manager.org  -o-  http://ovirt.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505  -o-  F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|