Running an ssh -X session between two Linux boxes is wonderful. I have to
work to keep track of what is running natively on the machine I am using and
what one is getting the data through the network. It is very nice.
I recall one night when I introduced another Hardhat mailing list member to
the -X option when he was grumbling about using vi while helping me remotely.
He kept saying, "Naw, I'll just do it" until I nagged him into trying it. I
am very good at nagging.
He had an immediate improvement in his mood as he shuffled things around with
ease in a GUI text editor.
I have to say that my son had to nag me into trying it the first time as well,
once. It sells itself after one try.
The other thing my son nagged me into that I just LOVE is using synergy
between my Windows and Linux laptops. The text cut and paste and shared
mouse and keyboard have saved me an unimaginable amount of time. It takes a
bit of work to tunnel it, but it is absolutely worth it.
It is particularly nice since I work with both OSs between my vocation and my
avocation.
I don't have a Mac, but, maybe someday, if Osirix doesn't get ported.
On Tuesday 21 March 2006 15:47, Greg Woodhouse wrote:
--- Ruben Safir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You may be right here, as I just don't have the Linux experience,
>
> but I
>
> > certainly have not encountered connectivity related problems on OS
>
> X.
>
>
> Well, right now I'm in the kitchen using the mail client running off
> my
> workstation in the living room, and watching TV from the livingroom
> computer as well. X can run any application from any computer in the
> world, securely, to your current X Server.
Okay, I see what you mean. I'm familiar with the way X11 works, and I
even use it occasionally (e.g., for VNC) but that's not something I've
ever really thought of as connectivity, just an interesting (and
clever) way of implementing a GUI.
> I don't think Aqua can't do this.
No, Aqua isn't TCP/IP based the way X11 is. But you can run X11 under
OS X if you want to. Somewhat amusingly, it's the only installation
option not checked by default, so if you want it, you need to
explicitly says so, but it's otherwise available out of the box.
> Windows certainly can't do it.
> And
> this is why X is called an Application Server. If Windows had X,
> there
> would be no Flash, Java Applet, silly thingies overwhelming your
> browser. You would just run any application in real time from
> anywhere
> with complete security.
Hmm...I was wondering where you were going by calling X11 secure, given
that with anything but loopback you'll have Ethernet frames floating
around including anything you happen to type. But having a standard
client you control listening to remote applications is an interesting
idea. That's something to think about.
> Ruben
===
Gregory Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"It is foolish to answer a question that
you do not understand."
--G. Polya ("How to Solve It")
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast
and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Hardhats-members mailing list
Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
--
Nancy Anthracite
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast
and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Hardhats-members mailing list
Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
