Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
VNC -- Very nifty and cool

By kmself in News
Sun Apr 16, 2000 at 12:03:37 AM EST
Tags: Software (all tags)
Software

In years consulting at various Unix shops I'm very familiar with X terminal emulation software and its ability to bring a remote Unix system (or systems) to your desktop, whether it be Unix, WinXX, Mac, or whatever. After much nagging and suggesting by a number of friends, I finally looked at VNC -- Virtual Network Computer -- last week.

Ssssssssmokin!


So what's VNC? Here's the blurb:

VNC stands for Virtual Network Computing. It is, in essence, a remote display system which allows you to view a computing 'desktop' environment not only on the machine where it is running, but from anywhere on the Internet and from a wide variety of machine architectures.

...and they ain't kidding, either.

By analogy, VNC is similar in respects to an X terminal emulator (more properly, an X server for an arbitrary platform), or products such as PC Anywhere. As with both of these products, VNC allows remote graphical access to a system. And then there are the differences:

  • VNC is stateless.
  • VNC is cross-platform -- like X but unlike PC Anywhere. Servers are available for Linux, Solaris, MS Windows, and OSF1/Alpha. Viewers are available for all of these, plus Mac (68k and PPC), MS Windows CE 2.x, and java clients which can be run in a browser window or Java VM.
  • VNC is stateless.
  • The entire session is maintained on the server. The viewer client is typically small (150 KB for MS Windows).
  • Sessions are portable. You can fire up a session, attach to it from one host, move to another location, and reconnect to the same session.
  • Multiple access to the same session is possible. You can access a session from several sites at the same time.
  • Did I mention that VNC is stateless? Unlike X Windows, the entire state is on the server (which, incidentally, includes X server code, for the *nix versions). The viewer itself is simply getting and sending graphical events. This means that a session, once started on a host, persists until killed on that host -- regardless of what happens at the client (viewer) sites -- you can close viewers, re-open them, crash the system -- all without affecting your VNC session. For anyone who's worked on a very stable Unix box from an unstable, legacy desktop system <g>, this is something you'll appreciate. VNC eliminates the "weakest link" problem of X, which dies if there are problems at either the remote or local end. Under VNC, only a remote-host problem will affect state.

I've been playing with this over the past couple of days. Think of VNC as the equivalent of the 'screen' utility -- a text-console detachment tool for Linux -- for the GUI.

Among the uses I see are providing Linux access to non-technical users at a small, Linux-friendly start-up, without providing them with an extra box, or shelling out $10k in X server licenses for Windows. To boot, they get a stable platform on which they can do their work.

A slight downside of VNC is that, unlike X, the VNC session is its own seperate window. Most modern PC X servers allow a mode in which X applications are locally managed, appearing like any other Windows application on the desktop. This can be convenient for providing locally and remotely served applications simultaneously. VNC does not offer this same seamless integration, AFAIK. And while connecting to an established session is trivial (click on the viewer icon, specify session, enter password), launching a remote session requires getting to the host and invoking it somehow. Not tough for a techie, but your admin staff may not appreciate the task. And while I haven't run metrics, it would seem that placing the entire session load -- X server and clients -- on the remote server would increase total load. However the impacts of serving a KDE session via VNC on my box weren't grossly evident.

Other features -- VNC can be tunnled through SSH for secure, encrypted sessions, as with X, though this isn't a clean "one-click" trick at present. While bandwidth requirements aren't excessive, I'm still puzzling over whether there are options to apply compression to the video stream. SSH compression is available, but X-based compression such as lbxproxy would seem to be precluded, as the server is remotely based (you'd just increase latency and load on the server).

While an obvious application is serving Linux/Unix desktops to Windows users, you can serve any supported platform (list above) similarly. On Linux/Unix, you can serve multiple sessions (Windows boxes only allow serving a single one -- this ain't a Citrix replacement), and you can either split operations or serve and view from the same system.

If you haven't checked this out yet, do your self a favor and do. The Windows version runs under Install Shield, and both RPMs and debs are available for Linux.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Virtual Network Computer
o Also by kmself


Display: Sort:
VNC -- Very nifty and cool | 37 comments (37 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
This really is a cool, and I've use... (3.00 / 1) (#3)
by bmetzler on Sat Apr 15, 2000 at 09:15:33 PM EST

bmetzler voted 1 on this story.

This really is a cool, and I've used it on both Windows boxes and Linux boxes. I've only had one problem on a production server where after some time of disuse, I found it taking up 100% CPU. This was kind of bad, but it was probably my fault. I haven't had time to see what the problem was yet. Other then that, it rocks, and I definately agree that everyone should try it.
www.bmetzler.org - it's not just a personal weblog, it's so much more.

This is indeed interesting technolo... (2.50 / 2) (#4)
by raph on Sat Apr 15, 2000 at 09:21:20 PM EST

raph voted 1 on this story.

This is indeed interesting technology. Here's a question, though, to ponder:

Which, technically, is the better solution for remote window drawing? Marshalling graphic primitives such as "draw rectangle, text, lines" into a wire protocol in a network transparent protocol, or virtualizing the drawing window, compressing the pixels, and sending those down the wire?

Since network transparency is one of the most significant sources of complexity in X, I think the answer to this question could be revealing.

Re: This is indeed interesting technolo... (3.00 / 1) (#12)
by Inoshiro on Sun Apr 16, 2000 at 01:03:56 AM EST

Yes, X uses vector graphics at its core.

The problem is that monitors and cards that can display vector graphics are expensive, at best. Certainly PC hardware did not have the capability to handle vector graphics when Windows was produced, which is why it works mainly with its bitmap interface. A bitmap, while larger and more memory intesive than a vector, is a lot easier to implement hardware wise (you just need to have a simple frame-buffer region which is dumped to the CRT at a certain Hz).

Also, X does not use vector graphics for everything. That would be impossible. Instead, it does the next best thing. It caches the bitmaps for things locally. That way, the X client need only say, "I need a box of dimensions (...), with widgets x, y, and z.." The X server calls the video card to draw the box of those dimensions (or uses a stub function to implement it on "stupid" bitmap hardware). If it has the bitmaps for the widgets cached, it puts them on the screen. Only if the bitmaps are not in local memory do the more expensive network transfers occur.

There are a few notes about this. First, most PC hardware still relies on "simplistic" monitors which draw a bitmap on the screen (causing the jagged appreance of lines that are not horizontal or vertical to appear -- this is partially fixed by having hardware anti-aliasing, and using a higher resolution). Second, MS Windows and other OSes (like the MacOS) have no such concept, as they were designed around the more primitive bitmap graphical architecture. This is why VNC acts in a somewhat kludgy fashion.



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
VNC is a great admin tool. This is... (3.00 / 1) (#9)
by bgp4 on Sat Apr 15, 2000 at 09:46:58 PM EST

bgp4 voted 1 on this story.

VNC is a great admin tool. This is a nice piece for those who aren't familiar with it. oh yeah, there's a client for your Pilot, too :-)
May all your salads be eaten out of black hats

I've used VNC on and off as needed ... (none / 0) (#1)
by rusty on Sat Apr 15, 2000 at 10:06:31 PM EST

rusty voted 1 on this story.

I've used VNC on and off as needed for the past couple of years, and it is exteremely cool. Once in a rare while my work requires that I deal with windows (most recently migrating some NT sybase databases), and this is by far my prefererred way to interface with windows. When it crashes, I get a chance to read my email while I wait for the server to reboot. :-)

____
Not the real rusty

nice writeup ... (1.00 / 1) (#2)
by ramses0 on Sat Apr 15, 2000 at 10:16:15 PM EST

ramses0 voted 1 on this story.

nice writeup
[ rate all comments , for great justice | sell.com ]

I've been using this off and on for... (4.00 / 1) (#6)
by analog on Sat Apr 15, 2000 at 11:07:38 PM EST

analog voted 1 on this story.

I've been using this off and on for at least a couple of years now (most recently so my wife can use NEdit under Windows), and it constantly amazes me how many people have never heard of it. So here's my +1 vote to help more people to hear of it. ;)

Oh, one more thing; the article gives several comparisons to commercial/proprietary products, which might lead some to believe VNC is such as well. It's GPL'ed.

I like VNC is because it's stateles... (3.00 / 1) (#5)
by fluffy grue on Sat Apr 15, 2000 at 11:19:32 PM EST

fluffy grue voted 1 on this story.

I like VNC is because it's stateless, and because they were actually smart enough to make the X server not rely on the server actually running on the local graphics hardware. I find it laughably funny how VNC for Windows operates, by Windows's methodology, like a more legitimate version of Back Orifice. (In fact, when I first heard about VNC and read about the Windows version, I wondered about using it in a Back Orifice-like way, this being before BO came out IIRC.) I was going to abuse the poor Win'95 lusers in the university's general computer labs, though I never got around to it, and by now I've lost interest anyway.
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]

Well, for a start it is kinda old n... (3.00 / 1) (#8)
by CyberPuppet on Sat Apr 15, 2000 at 11:36:38 PM EST

CyberPuppet voted 1 on this story.

Well, for a start it is kinda old news. It's been covered on that other site a few times. On the other hand, its a great program - i use it to control my mp3 playing 686 from my laptop. the mp3 box is in another room (with the guts of the hi-fi) -- my favorite feature is the ability to scale. If i scale it by 5/6 it doesnt take up all my screen but its still quite readable.
--
The Teenage Computer Network

Re: Well, for a start it is kinda old n... (none / 0) (#11)
by Inoshiro on Sun Apr 16, 2000 at 12:51:48 AM EST

I think that solution is a bit overkill. I have an HP 300 diskless workstation (hooray for University spring-cleaning ;-)).. It works fine over the network for controlling one of my machines (acting as an MP3 jukebox, among other things it does). Of course, I like this solution because I'm a CLI kinda-guy for that kind of things. :-)

--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
If you're using Winamp.. (none / 0) (#37)
by Meerkat on Wed Apr 19, 2000 at 01:42:05 AM EST

Apologies as this is a little off track from VNC... If your MP3 machine is running Winamp, you can control it well using WinAmpRemote (see http://come.to/BassicTech/ ) Just a bit less overhead than VNC. According to Google there are a few other similar programs available. It works for me, anyway :-) VNC, by the way, rocks my little world.

[ Parent ]
*This* is the kind of news that nee... (3.00 / 3) (#7)
by Anonymous Coward on Sun Apr 16, 2000 at 12:03:37 AM EST

Anonymous Coward voted 1 on this story.

*This* is the kind of news that needs to be on K5.

A little more compression info (2.50 / 2) (#10)
by rusty on Sun Apr 16, 2000 at 12:18:20 AM EST

Some comments on the "window vs. session" aspects, and on how to minimize your bandwidth requirements:

I think providing the whole desktop in one window is actually the right way for this application to work. Yes, it's cool that you can pipe individual applications to X servers on other boxen, and this has it's place. But what VCNC aims to do is provide a stable, stateless interface to a remote system. This is best cross-platformized, IMO, in exactly the way they did it. Log into VNC on a win box, and you get the whole desktop (because windows takes some serious voodoo to do the X-style "application only" networking). It works the same way on any system it can connect to/from, which is nice. And if I fire up a VNC server on my linux box, it's always there, in the exact state I left it last time. I can log out at work, go home, log back in, and the mouse is in the same spot. That's cool.

There are settings you can use with the windows server to minimize the area and rate at which it refreshes the display. So, on a low bandwidth connection, you can set it to only redraw updates on the current active window, and ignore the rest of the screen. This speeds things up quite a bit. I don't know what the equivalent linux server settings are, as I've primarily used it to access NT servers from a stable platform.

____
Not the real rusty

Re: VNC -- Very nifty and cool (3.00 / 2) (#13)
by alexz on Sun Apr 16, 2000 at 12:35:06 PM EST

Check out www.lastfoot.com

Pitch me -- what's lastfoot (none / 0) (#15)
by kmself on Sun Apr 16, 2000 at 01:24:05 PM EST

Yes, I can read the site, but I'd prefer it in your words. Marketspeak Sunday mornings is bad for the digestion.

--
Karsten M. Self
SCO -- backgrounder on Caldera/SCO vs IBM
Support the EFF!!
There is no K5 cabal.
[ Parent ]

Re: Pitch me -- what's lastfoot (4.00 / 1) (#16)
by alexz on Sun Apr 16, 2000 at 01:37:54 PM EST

It gives you an account on their Red Hat servers and you can run your X Desktop thru VNC. They are offering free accounts right now, not sure if that will last tho.

[ Parent ]
Re: Pitch me -- what's lastfoot (4.00 / 1) (#18)
by rusty on Sun Apr 16, 2000 at 02:18:10 PM EST

I just signed up to check it out-- very, very cool. They don't ask for any info but a username and password, for one thing (halleleujah!), and they just make you an account on one of their linux boxen. You can access it through VNC locally, or through the java VNC client that runs in your browser. Very, very slick. It's a little slow through the browser, but not intolerable (disclaimer: "not intolerable" means not bad on a 640K DSL pipe. dialup might be intolerably slow). I just had a thought-- It'd be amusing to login in through the browser, then start netscape on the remote desktop, and log in through that browser, etc. Why? Why not? :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
multiple logins (none / 0) (#25)
by Anonymous Hero on Mon Apr 17, 2000 at 02:07:27 AM EST

workspot.com lets you do the same thing, access a Linux desktop through a VNC connection. So the first thing I tried on lastfoot was connecting to my workspot account. It didn't work.

[ Parent ]
Re: VNC -- Very nifty and cool (4.00 / 1) (#14)
by scriptkiddie on Sun Apr 16, 2000 at 12:36:02 PM EST

VNC is cool, but it has some HUGE limitations. First, it is very slow - quite a
bit slower than some of the commercial products. It's built-in security is a
joke - a friend of mine used it to connect to his teacher's computer and modify
the Cisco curriculum for April Fools Day. And, unlike simple remote X, you have
to be running an X server on the server side, which can take 30Mb of RAM in
addition to each program.

VNC is cool, but until we all have SSH, gigabit networks, and a few gigabytes
of RAM on our servers, it won't be all that useful.


Limitations -- speed, security (4.50 / 2) (#24)
by kmself on Mon Apr 17, 2000 at 12:02:09 AM EST

I can't address the speed issue directly -- my experience with VNC is limited at this point. However, it seems clear that VNC is a tradeoff of certain features -- speed, X-specific functionality, tuning features -- for simplicity, portability, and statelessness of the client.

The site documentation and FAQ specifically address security, and I believe the decision to rely on external, third-party applications for the security component of a connection is the right one.

--
Karsten M. Self
SCO -- backgrounder on Caldera/SCO vs IBM
Support the EFF!!
There is no K5 cabal.
[ Parent ]

Re: VNC -- Very nifty and cool (none / 0) (#32)
by kzinti on Tue Apr 18, 2000 at 08:46:00 AM EST

True, VNC is not speedy, but I find that it compares well to the commercial
products, at least to the one I've used.  We have PCAnywhere in our shop, where
we use it to connect from a 500 MHz client machine to a quad-PPro Compaq 6500
department server, both machines very lightly loaded.  I find that the
PCAnywhere is slower than VNC on the same network (100Mbit ethernet). 
Furthermore, I find that VNC is better at drawing menus, popups, tooltips, and
other display transients than PCAnywhere.

I suspect that unix users who are accustomed to using the remote display
capabilities of X will be the most disappointed with the performance of VNC. 
X, despite the bloat in its klunky protocol, is much faster than VNC when used
on a fast network.

--Jim


[ Parent ]
VNC and incredible slowness. (3.00 / 1) (#17)
by deuteron on Sun Apr 16, 2000 at 01:59:10 PM EST

I've used VNC many times, and can't get over how incredibly SLOW it is. I mean, I've used it going from a FreeBSD machine to a WinNT Workstation machine over 100M switched ethernet, and it's totally unusable. The mouse pointer has trouble keeping up, the screen takes days to refresh properly, etcetera, etcetera. I just can't see why people would consider this a viable remote administration tool, let alone a tool for running apps remotely. The VNC docs seem to say "well, we know people complain about compression (or lack thereof), but it's the best it can be, so there's nothing we can do about it." I think they need to research this a bit more, because I have used Citrix via a 28.8k dialup connection over many Internet hops and it works MUCH better than VNC on my local 100M switched network. Perhaps I'm doing something wrong, but I seem to be running it the same way everyone else is.

Re: VNC and incredible slowness. (none / 0) (#19)
by rusty on Sun Apr 16, 2000 at 02:21:32 PM EST

You've got to be doing something wrong. I've used it on a 10M LAN, NT server, Linux client, and it's like sitting at the NT console. There's *no* noticeable delay, at all. I've even (back in the day) used it over a *14.4 dialup*, and while it was very very slow, it was still usable, in a pinch. I'd look into your setup, and make sure your connection isn't routing through Mongolia or something, because that's not the experience I've had with it at all.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Re: VNC and incredible slowness. (none / 0) (#20)
by deuteron on Sun Apr 16, 2000 at 03:11:35 PM EST

This baffles me, as I've used it with many different configurations (Linux (many distros) <-> Linux, Linux <-> FreeBSD, Linux/FreeBSD <-> Windows) and on many different networks using VNC defaults and it's still very hosed. Do you ever have to do anything special to get this performance? I've never been able to find any special configuration options, but maybe there's a "NotSuck" option somewhere that I'm missing. :P

[ Parent ]
Re: VNC and incredible slowness. (none / 0) (#21)
by rusty on Sun Apr 16, 2000 at 03:17:02 PM EST

No, I've never had any trouble with the out-of-the-box config. Like I mentioned in another post, there are some tweaks you can use with the windows server to improve speed, but I always set it to "maximum bandwidth" settings on a LAN, because IME it has no trouble handling that. Are you piping it through ssh, or running a proxy, or anything else weird? I'd recommend you contact the VNC developers, because that lack of performance is *definitely* not normal behavior.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Re: VNC and incredible slowness. (none / 0) (#30)
by Demona on Tue Apr 18, 2000 at 12:18:03 AM EST

Are you using 8-bit color depth? It can be quite slow at higher depths. Also, try unchecking some of the screen update options. I have yet to try it with my new 100base NIC, but I've already noticed that running X apps remotely doesn't seem appreciably faster...

[ Parent ]
Re: VNC and incredible slowness. (none / 0) (#35)
by TREE on Tue Apr 18, 2000 at 04:31:14 PM EST

I use this everyday, and do the majority of my coding through it from a winNT box to a linux server, over a 100MB net. I've used this from a variety of machines on this net and have noticed the following: - Windows server is slow. It creates a huge amount of load on the server machine, regardless of which client is accessing, and slows down *everything*, including itself. - 10/100 isn't very significant. - greater than 8bit color depth is slow, even to the same machine! (i.e. linux->linux) - tunneled through ssh, over ~1Mb connection is unuseably slow for anything but simple tasks. and the biggie: - a faster video card on the client makes the biggest difference. We upgraded some machines to AGP video cards recently, and all of them are *much* faster than mostly otherwise equivalent machines.

[ Parent ]
Re: VNC and incredible slowness. (none / 0) (#23)
by the way on Sun Apr 16, 2000 at 07:54:12 PM EST

VNC is slow. It's sending the whole image across the network, which is a bandwidth hog. OTOH, most commercial screen-sharing apps send a description of the image, which requires much less bandwidth.

This is not to criticise VNC. By not using a screen description protocol they make porting the app much easier, and it's less likely that you'll find screens that don't render properly.

However, I've used Timbuktu Pro over a 28.8k modem with some success, which really isn't an option with VNC. Timbuktu has been around for many years, and has only really ever tried to do one thing, and do it well. It's cross-platform (Mac/Windoze; not Unix) too.

I find VNC fine over 100Mb Ethernet, and usable but a little frustrating over 10Mb.

[ Parent ]

Re: VNC and incredible slowness. (none / 0) (#36)
by Anonymous Hero on Tue Apr 18, 2000 at 04:35:16 PM EST

Uhhhh, yes it is SORT of sending the entire screen, but really only the parts
that change get sent across the wire. Its actually fairly optimal.

I hammered on VNC extensively, opening a desktop over 28.8, then from there
opening a session BACK to my box etc. Eventually I did get it to crash, but
surprisingly it was pretty useable 

Since then I've set up application serving off a little Linux box to the office
PC's with it. X is VERY useable, and in fact my 96 meg 120mhz 6x86 machine is
currently serving 8 X desktops plus running Apache and some databases with no
sweat!

I would NOT call VNC the fastest, but it sure is pretty good. 


[ Parent ]
Don't forget the built-in java client! (none / 0) (#22)
by Greyjack on Sun Apr 16, 2000 at 03:51:24 PM EST

Be sure to try hitting http://your-vnc-host:5800 with your browser.

It's verrrrrrrry smooth :)

--
Here is my philosophy: Everything changes (the word "everything" has just changed as the word "change" has: it now means "no change") --Ron Padgett


On windows vs Unix (none / 0) (#26)
by Gregory Maxwell on Mon Apr 17, 2000 at 02:07:54 PM EST

On MS Windows, VNC lets you view/control a users desktop. This is great for
remote support.
With UNIX as a VNC server, you can only access a seperate remote session, which
means you can't support a desktop user unless they run all their apps via a VNC
session which is a *pain* to configure and it's *SLOW*.

Wyse (I believe) released a modifyed XFree86 with their Linux based winterms
which had a VNC server built-in. Because of this, you can 'help-out' a user
without a performance loss in the general case.
Unfortunatly, these changes are closed source (thanks X11 licence!), so the
rest of use trying to impliment Linux on corp. desktops don't get the benifit
of this code.

Is anyone here aware of an eqivlent option available or being worked on? This
would be a real boon for Linux desktops.


Re: VNC -- Very nifty and cool (4.00 / 1) (#27)
by drfalken on Mon Apr 17, 2000 at 03:27:59 PM EST

Nice write up of a very useful and VERY dangerous piece of software. VNC is great for all the resons mentioned. Cross-platform, loads of clients (even PalmVNC!), low memory overhead on the serving host, etc. The main problem is security. If you use VNC on a system with an established security model (a centralized NT domain, a user-based login *NIX Xwindows session etc), you reduce the security to that provided by VNC itself. Any secure system is only as strong as its weakest link, which in this case may become VNC rather than the system that is being trusted. If a method of defeating a version of the security is discovered, you are faced with a host-by-host patching job for all systems in your Enterprise. I'm not trying to rain on the VNC parade here, these are considerations for any remote control piece of software. Indeed, this is just another reason to ensure that you *network* layer is secure, and not to place too much trust in application (OS) layer security implementations.

Re: VNC -- Very nifty and cool (none / 0) (#28)
by Dangermouse on Mon Apr 17, 2000 at 09:05:05 PM EST

We use this utility a lot where I work. It saves us a lot of time and effort in fixing problems remotely, as well as remotely training users. One thing I've noticed is that it isn't tolerant of faults with video drivers (at least on Win9x / NT platforms). The problem may not be apparent on the host machine, but when the viewer is launched, all sorts of fluoro colours are displayed, then the host crashes.


-----
No one has "Rights", neither machines nor flesh-and-blood. Persons...have opportunities, not rights, which they do or do not use. - Lazarus Long
Dual Screen Hack (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by belial on Mon Apr 17, 2000 at 09:52:36 PM EST

x2vnc:
http://www.hubbe.net/~hubbe/x2vnc.html

If you're tired of switching keyboards, go with x2vnc.

my setup is pretty cool.

3 monitors, 3 operating systems, 1 keyboard, 1 mouse.

iMac <- linux/xwindows -> NT

The cool thing with x2vnc is that you can actually use your side machines with very little lag since you dont have to deal with drawing hextiles on the client. If I'm remote, I dont mind the lag, but this configuration is set up to remove mice and keyboards rather than monitors.

as an added bonus, people _trip_ when they see the mouse move from the mac to the linux box to the pc.

I'm looking forward to someone porting the server to BeOS so I can hang a monitor from the ceiling.

Anyone has clues on how to use it as a cheap WTS a (none / 0) (#31)
by nictamer on Tue Apr 18, 2000 at 06:25:21 AM EST

Here's the deal: I want windows client to be able to log in and spawn sessions automagically (on a linux server) la Windows Terminal Server or xdm . Anyone has any idea on how to do it?
--
Religion is for sheep.
Re: Anyone has clues on how to use it as a cheap W (none / 0) (#33)
by nictamer on Tue Apr 18, 2000 at 10:19:02 AM EST

Responding to myself, I've found this, which does exactly what I wanted. There's a good reason to use VNC in lieu of regular X-Windows for a lan: the clients are much smaller AND free, as opposed to Windows client costing BIG BUCKS.
--
Religion is for sheep.
[ Parent ]
REPOST URL (none / 0) (#34)
by nictamer on Tue Apr 18, 2000 at 10:19:28 AM EST

Sorry, I forgot to paste the correct url: Responding to myself, I've found this, which does exactly what I wanted. There's a good reason to use VNC in lieu of regular X-Windows for a lan: the clients are much smaller AND free, as opposed to Windows client costing BIG BUCKS.
--
Religion is for sheep.
[ Parent ]
VNC -- Very nifty and cool | 37 comments (37 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!