🚀 go-pugleaf

Bruce Cook (BC3-AU@bigfoot.com) wrote:
: "Kaleb S. KEITHLEY" <k.#nojunk#keithley@osf.org> writes:

: > Bruce Cook wrote:
: > > > By todays standards it is a minimalist system!
: > > 
: > > One of my client's uses X to an SGI running a modeling package.
: > > 
: > > When he uses certain parts of the package, the network when quiet
: > > (less than 3% load) will jump to a 40% load for minutes at a time.
: > > 
: > > Every other user on the network segment notices...
: > > 
: > > Not saying that we should replace it, but it isn't the most efficient
: > > thing on the planet.
: > 
: > Got any suggestions? :-) ICA might be less bandwidth intensive; but
: > then, it does a lot less than X does, and once you start using some of
: > ICA's optional stuff, then it too can become quite the bandwidth hog.
: > And T.SHARE is even more of a bandwidth hog and it does less.
: > 
: > Try using LBX -- it can substantially reduce the amount of network
: > bandwidth that your X programs produce.

: My problem is convincing the local software company or SGI to improve their
: programs.  SGI won't even fix their stupid little editor (jot) that
: is the default for everything, so that it will work under X and not
: just on the console.

: (Whay an editor needs special graphice H/ware is beyond me)

Just yesterday I used 'jot' and 'zmail -gui' remotely over a *MODEM*,
displaying them at home on my intel Linux machine, running them on
an SGI at work.

It worked.  What are you talking about?

(Now, there are some other applications (OpenGL) by SGI that require
you to be on the console at the time, or at least on a console that
has OpenGL installed (my Linux does not).)