| 1 |
On 2016-01-16, Daniel Frey <djqfrey@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I would use VPN + an X server that can spawn sessions on demand. This |
| 4 |
> way it all stays internal on the work network. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
One caveat: the way X11 was intended to work in this situation is that |
| 7 |
you run the X11 clients on the secure machine in the office, and run |
| 8 |
the X11 server on the remote machine in the worker's home. But, in my |
| 9 |
experience, it's been decades since remote X sessions could be used |
| 10 |
for anything other than xterms and emacs. All the "modern" GUI |
| 11 |
toolkits (GTK, Qt, etc.) have been designed with the assumption that |
| 12 |
the X11 server and client are co-resident on the same machine. Even |
| 13 |
the most trivial operations in those toolkits involve so many |
| 14 |
round-trips between server and client that there's an intolerable |
| 15 |
multi-second latency over a WAN connection (these days it barely works |
| 16 |
though a 100M LAN). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
It's a shame, because that used to be one of the big wins in the X11 |
| 19 |
architecture. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
OTOH, there are other remote desktop options that work much better. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> I do something similar at work for our Windows clients, it was |
| 24 |
> simple to set up there. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> I've set up my home server to act as a Windows-type terminal server |
| 27 |
> using X and tigervnc. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
OK, there you're running the X server and client on the same machine, |
| 30 |
but the server is using VNC to display remotely. That works. Just |
| 31 |
don't try to do it the "right" way -- the way X was intended to work. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> It actually works well, but I never got into multiuser and dealing |
| 34 |
> with logon scripts and the like (you may or may not need this to |
| 35 |
> deal with user documents and the like.) |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Grant |
Archives