|
|
|
|
|
by w0utert
2334 days ago
|
|
>> You can’t compare it to Steam Link either, because that’s using H264 video compression. Guacamole does not use video compression. This part I don't really understand. Why does a client <-> guacamole <-> VNC connection be less inefficient in terms of bandwidth compared to a direct client <-> VNC connection? And if the general idea of sending screen data to a client be much more efficient if you use something like H264, why doesn't Guacamole implement some kind of similar compression technique? I used NX for a while, and that does something very similar. On a slow connection you can actually see the compression artefacts when scrolling. It's not pretty, but at least it makes the machine accessible. Anyway, when I tried guacamole, it was over Gbit LAN, if that's not even enough expose a VNC client using Guacamole, what's the point? |
|
Because it’s not using the VNC protocol. It’s the Guacamole protocol. It is more restricted compared to modern VNC compression variants.
> I used NX for a while, and that does something very similar. On a slow connection you can actually see the compression artefacts when scrolling. It's not pretty, but at least it makes the machine accessible.
NoMachine NX is a different beast altogether. It’s comparable to RDP in that it deals directly with the actual (X11) objects instead of (just) their on-screen rendering. It’s basically advanced compression over X11 forwarding over SSH.
---
The point is HTML5. It works everywhere you have a somewhat reasonable browser.