While I realize VNC can be used on multiple os's, I saw a snip of an article that POed me. It claimed that you couldn't graphically remotely administer a Linux machine before VNC. I assume it was a newbie (as am I), but one who didn't know about X, or Webmin, and came from a PC Anywhere background. I have used VNC at my brothers, but haven't messed with x remotely; what are the benefits/limitations of either, relating to a Linux installation. Has anyone messed with X remotely going either way from a X.org machine to Xfree or vice versa. Trying to learn from others mistakes before I fiddle TIA Randal
lerninlinux@comcast.net wrote:
While I realize VNC can be used on multiple os's, I saw a snip of an article that POed me. It claimed that you couldn't graphically remotely administer a Linux machine before VNC. I assume it was a newbie (as am I), but one who didn't know about X, or Webmin, and came from a PC Anywhere background. I have used VNC at my brothers, but haven't messed with x remotely; what are the benefits/limitations of either, relating to a Linux installation. Has anyone messed with X remotely going either way from a X.org machine to Xfree or vice versa.
X was in use, before there was any such thing as VNC. Also with X, you can run the full desktop or just the apps you need. For example, I occasionally run Yast2 on my firewall, using ssh and X, from my desktop. I also frequently run ethereal. Works fine.
Remote X is fine over LAN-connection with at least 10 MBit/s and low latency (ping time, keyword "round trips'). Even on a DSL line it is nearly unusable, because it becomes slow, especially the more "modern" X11 toolkits suffer from this. VNC, especially TightVNC, is much better suited for slow connections, "NX" of nomachine.com is another alternative especially for X11. -- Viele Grüße Michael
Hi All, I've been using remote-X over dial-up connections (ISDN) quite easily at work. This wasn't just X, but a compressed version of it. On both ends, software (go-global) was installed from Graphon (Solaris/HP-UX and PC). And as far as i know, there is still something like LBX (Low-Bandwith-X), an extension to X. Might that be something for you? Hans. On Sat, 2005-01-22 at 23:23, Michael Behrens wrote:
Remote X is fine over LAN-connection with at least 10 MBit/s and low latency (ping time, keyword "round trips'). Even on a DSL line it is nearly unusable, because it becomes slow, especially the more "modern" X11 toolkits suffer from this.
VNC, especially TightVNC, is much better suited for slow connections, "NX" of nomachine.com is another alternative especially for X11.
--
Viele Grüße
Michael
Hans Witvliet wrote:
Hi All,
I've been using remote-X over dial-up connections (ISDN) quite easily at work. This wasn't just X, but a compressed version of it. On both ends, software (go-global) was installed from Graphon (Solaris/HP-UX and PC).
And as far as i know, there is still something like LBX (Low-Bandwith-X), an extension to X.
Hallo Hans, I know LBX (lbxproxy), and I tested it, as well as ssh with compression an X11 redirection (ssh -CX), but over my DSL line both were unusable slow with "modern" X clients like mozilla. For simple clients (xterm and the like) they seemed ok to me. -- Viele Grüße ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Behrens
Michael wrote regarding 'Re: [SLE] remote X vrs VNC' on Mon, Jan 24 at 06:59:
Hans Witvliet wrote:
Hi All,
I've been using remote-X over dial-up connections (ISDN) quite easily at work. This wasn't just X, but a compressed version of it. On both ends, software (go-global) was installed from Graphon (Solaris/HP-UX and PC).
And as far as i know, there is still something like LBX (Low-Bandwith-X), an extension to X.
Hallo Hans,
I know LBX (lbxproxy), and I tested it, as well as ssh with compression an X11 redirection (ssh -CX), but over my DSL line both were unusable slow with "modern" X clients like mozilla. For simple clients (xterm and the like) they seemed ok to me.
You either have unacceptably high standards for "usability", a high-latency connection to the X server in question, or both. I've used X apps over a good dial-up line, tunneled over compressed SSH - including Mozilla - with acceptable results. This is with a 200MHz machine or so on both ends of the link. If you want to seem like you're sitting in front of the machine, VNC isn't gonna do it either - you need a really long monitor cable and a keyboard extension cable. Things with large pop-up windows, etc, do tend to get a little slower over a tunneled connection, and ssh's compression isn't really optimized for anything but generic data - so you should get better performance out of something dedicated like LBX. Either way, though, remote control options for other systems suck as much or more. Using TightVNC with the jpeg compression options seems to be about the best bet, since you can trade off some quality for a bit of speed (and since you can bump the color depth down on slow links). --Danny, who uses VNC a lot now, largely because of the state preservation ability (start working at home, close the window, open it back up at work where it's just as I left it) and because the -via argument now makes the ssh tunnel setup a little quicker.
Actually, i tend to use X for remote administration (through ssh -X ;-), and to connect to Windows machines with vnc. I shall admi, though, that VNC has some advantages (or not, from your point of view) the main being that you can connect to an already running graphical environment which will survive your vnc session. X applications, on the other side, will run on demand from your X server. I favoru X for being more secure (through ssh forwarding) although tightvnc should be there... Alle 18:53, sabato 22 gennaio 2005, lerninlinux@comcast.net ha scritto:
While I realize VNC can be used on multiple os's, I saw a snip of an article that POed me. It claimed that you couldn't graphically remotely administer a Linux machine before VNC. I assume it was a newbie (as am I), but one who didn't know about X, or Webmin, and came from a PC Anywhere background. I have used VNC at my brothers, but haven't messed with x remotely; what are the benefits/limitations of either, relating to a Linux installation. Has anyone messed with X remotely going either way from a X.org machine to Xfree or vice versa.
Trying to learn from others mistakes before I fiddle TIA Randal
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:30:17 +0100, Luca Botti <botti.luca@email.it> wrote:
Actually, i tend to use X for remote administration (through ssh -X ;-), and to connect to Windows machines with vnc.
I shall admi, though, that VNC has some advantages (or not, from your point of view) the main being that you can connect to an already running graphical environment which will survive your vnc session.
X applications, on the other side, will run on demand from your X server.
I favoru X for being more secure (through ssh forwarding) although tightvnc should be there...
You can use vnc with ssh port forwarding. Actually, this is the only way you should use it :) Sunny -- Get Firefox http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliates&id=10745&t=85
Luca wrote regarding 'Re: [SLE] remote X vrs VNC' on Mon, Jan 24 at 15:30: [...]
I favoru X for being more secure (through ssh forwarding) although tightvnc should be there...
You can tunnel vnc over ssh. Actually, that's prefereable, in most cases, over running an open vncserver on the internet. --Danny, who uses vnc over ssh, on a daily basis
Danny Sauer wrote:
Luca wrote regarding 'Re: [SLE] remote X vrs VNC' on Mon, Jan 24 at 15:30: [...]
I favoru X for being more secure (through ssh forwarding) although tightvnc should be there...
You can tunnel vnc over ssh. Actually, that's prefereable, in most cases, over running an open vncserver on the internet.
..and it's a must if your machine is behind a firewall. I've been using VNC for "seeing" my Mac desktop at work, over an ADSL 2 mb/s line. I used both "Chicken of VNC" and TightVNC as clients, and TightVNC is the fastest. I agree with Luca. X is a different approach. You use VNC for driving your remote desktop, while X *is* (or can be) your desktop at home. Both of them are very secure, using a ssh tunnel. (as ssh can be... ;-) )
--Danny, who uses vnc over ssh, on a daily basis
Stakanovist! ;-)) Ciao, Ermanno
[Snipped ancient conversation about X vs VNC vs LBX vs NX for graphical network access] One other possibility is RDP. I've been very impressed with the performance of this protocol when I use rdesktop 1.3.1 to work on a Windows 2003 server over a 2272/288 ADSL connection. Subjectively, it feels very responsive, compared either to VNC or X11 over similar connections. Unfortunately, there's not yet a way to host an RDP session on SuSE, but maybe there will be eventually, since there's some talk about it at xorg: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2632 "Access X sessions from RDP dumb terminals" -- Bill
participants (9)
-
Danny Sauer
-
Ermanno Polli
-
Hans Witvliet
-
James Knott
-
lerninlinux@comcast.net
-
Luca Botti
-
Michael Behrens
-
Sunny
-
William Gallafent