Re: FBVNC

[Klaus Weidner <kw@w-m-p.com>]

On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 01:47:57PM -0500, Alexander Vingardt wrote:
> Is running vncserver and fbvnc more efficient than running just tinyx 
> in terms of memory consumption and speed?

The released version is slower due to pushing pixels through the TCP
socket. I have an experimental version running that uses shared memory to
communicate and therefore should be very close in speed to running native
X11.

Note that my primary priority with the fbvnc client wasn't speed or
memory savings - I wanted the flexibility that this solution offered,
such as the virtual keyboard overlay (which isn't really needed on the
Zaurus models with ha hardware keyboard), and on-the-fly rotation,
anti-aliased scaling and resizing. The RandR X extension wasn't useful
yet when I wrote this back in 2000, I haven't tried TinyX recently to see
what the current status is like.

If you just want an X server I'm assuming you'll be happier using TinyX.

-Klaus