Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!psuvax1!schwartz@shire.cs.psu.edu
From: schwartz@shire.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Starting remote xterms
Summary: optimal technique?
Message-ID: <4139@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu>
Date: 30 Nov 88 22:18:19 GMT
References: <5345@polya.Stanford.EDU> <4292@umd5.umd.edu>
Sender: news@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu
Reply-To: schwartz@shire.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz)
Organization: Pennsylvania State University, Computer Science
Lines: 28
In-reply-to: jonnyg@umd5.umd.edu (Jon Greenblatt)

In article <4292@umd5.umd.edu>, jonnyg@umd5 (Jon Greenblatt) writes:
>In article <5345@polya.Stanford.EDU> weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU writes:
>>    "rsh remotehost -n 'exec /usr/bin/X11/xterm >& /dev/null' &"

How about this:
	rsh remotehost -n "xterm -display myhost:0 >& /dev/null &"

Running xterm in the background lets rlogind (and thus rsh) exit immediately.

>	This is a very inefficient way of doing things. The X Window buffers
>ar far more numerous than the equivalent rsh buffers as far as I know.

What does that mean, and how does it relate to efficiency?  Is it more
expensive to let xterm send (possible batched) bitblt commands than to
have every character wend its way through rlogind?  Also, doesn't remote
xterm mean fewer processes on the local machine than what you suggest?

>Try the following:
>	"xterm -e rlogin remotehost"

>	This will also solve your problem with hanging processes. Resize
>will still work if your display is set correctly.

I could run Suntools if I wanted to do it that way! :-) :-)
Anyway, that technique doesn't preserve the notion of network transparency.
For example, you have to set DISPLAY by hand to get things to work right.

-- Scott