X is simply awful over the WAN, trust me. Please note: I'm not talking about an essentially text-only experience like xterm, which works fine. I mean actually using X as a graphical client.
X is simply awful over the WAN, trust me. Please note: I'm not talking about an essentially text-only experience like xterm, which works fine. I mean actually using X as a graphical client.
There are at least one X extension out there that offer compression for long distance connections. But for some reason they never really took off.
See http://keithp.com/~keithp/talks/usenix2003/html/net.html and http://vis.lbl.gov/Events/SC08/RemoteX/index.html for more details.
As it relates to the original topic I'd be interested to see real-world performance comparisons between Plan 9 and X because as the papers state X stinks on ice over the WAN.
I am not located in the US, but hopping borders in europe does not seem to be a problem. It's less of a problem than with X-forwarding or VNC.
As for regular fs mounts (note that a remote control session on plan9 is actually also just a regular fs mount), I mount things from the US every once in a while, and I am located in Sweden. It's obviously not fast due to very high latency and limited bandwidth, but it works just fine within those constraints.
But of course, if the RTT >1 second, then it will take >1 second for a keystroke to show up on screen in a remote control session. You cannot be resistant to this (mosh tries to guess how things would look if the keystrokes had gone through, which is a major hack, and not really an issue).