| 1 |
On Mon, August 19, 2013 22:51, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 19/08/2013 22:32, joost@××××××××.org wrote: |
| 3 |
>>> X11, well that's another story and probably way off topic. It was |
| 4 |
>>> >designed for hardware and architectures that haven't existed for 20+ |
| 5 |
>>> >years. Almost all factors that made X11 awesome in the 80s and 90s |
| 6 |
>>> >simply are not there anymore. |
| 7 |
>> X11 was still really awesome in 2002. When we used remote graphical |
| 8 |
>> logons to different machines. |
| 9 |
>> It also helped with performance of certain desktop applications. Running |
| 10 |
>> the application on a different machine (with better CPU) then the |
| 11 |
>> machine I was working at always made people wonder why the same |
| 12 |
>> application was performing so badly on theirs ;) |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> But these days. Having fast reliable performance locally is better. With |
| 15 |
>> a decent RDP that can connect to an existing desktop without having to |
| 16 |
>> set it up as shared from the beginning is more useful. Any ideas on |
| 17 |
>> that? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Agreed. I've gotten so used to all that local *GL* goodness that running |
| 20 |
> almost any app (except maybe xterm) remotely is just so painful it makes |
| 21 |
> me cry... |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
For remote access, I can live without all the special effects. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> I'm also lucky in that when I managed to foist all the oracle with java |
| 26 |
> installers off onto some other team of luckless suckers, I was left with |
| 27 |
> just the best remote interface ever - ssh and bash. So I can afford to |
| 28 |
> be smug :-) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
ssh -Y <host> works really well for those. |
| 31 |
I always feel smug when others first need to figure out how to get a |
| 32 |
remote-X connection to the server because they use MS Windows. |
| 33 |
They often claim that a VNC-server is a valid pre-req... |
| 34 |
Take it from me, that is NOT a requirement to install the software. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
> I don't know how to make your RDP problem easier - I treat that the same |
| 37 |
> as allow/deny rules for ssh (or any other kind of access really) and |
| 38 |
> just accept that sometimes I need to ask first for something to be |
| 39 |
> allowed. again, I can afford to be smug here too as the only things I |
| 40 |
> need to RDP to are terminals set up for that very purpose and VirtualBox |
| 41 |
> VMs (that is one more check box at the create stage). |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
For me the usage case is as follows: |
| 44 |
1) I start to do something on my desktop at home |
| 45 |
2) I go to the office or customer site |
| 46 |
3) I need to continue/finish what I was doing (it's usually for a customer |
| 47 |
in that case) |
| 48 |
... |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
At this point, I can't continue. Unless I remembered to run a VNC server |
| 51 |
and used vnc to localhost for step 1. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
With a MS Windows desktop, it is usually (sometimes I get a "clean" |
| 54 |
desktop and still can't continue) possible. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
One option would be to be able to redirect an application to a different |
| 57 |
X-server and when that one dies/disconnects/... it will reconnect to the |
| 58 |
initial (my desktop) one. |
| 59 |
This is also not something I found yet either. |
| 60 |
For these activities, all the latest *GL* goodies are not necessary and I |
| 61 |
can easily live without them. Remote 3D gaming isn't something I want to |
| 62 |
do. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
-- |
| 65 |
Joost |
Archives