The server takes the place of the port forwarding at the firewall. I get
it. So for the cost of having a server, you get greater flexibility.
The loss of the file transfer after a month in the free version is the
thing that turned me off. The other thing that will turn me off,
almost completely, is the continuing bias that believes Windows
computers are the world's only computer. I use UltraVNC to talk to the
TightVNC servers on my Linux machines more often than I talk UltraVNC to
UltraVNC server on my desktop, so the lack of a Linux client and server
is a deal killer. On my firewall, X.X.X.101 gets port forwarded if
5801 is chosen, X.X.X.102, gets 5802, etc. And on the machines I run
the vnc servers on screen :1, :2, ... respectively. This works
seamlessly. On the other hand, I often have to ssh in from the one
machine I can remember to remember which screen is in use on the target
computer.
As always, there are many pluses and minuses to these decisions and
there is no one size fits all. Skype runs on all machines and it goes
without saying that I use this everywhere.
Hope everyone is having a great holiday!
Bob
richard allen wrote:
Each remote computer registers itself at powerup so it can make
requests to the LogMeIn server. I am presented, at the 'client',
with a list of those logged in and select the one I want. In
actuality, all my computers are clients and are served by LogMeIn's
server.
LogMeIn software runs in all my mahines. The frill that I need that
goes away after the first month or so in the free version is the file
transfer. I pay for that on only two of the eight machines that I
have on the service and if I really need a large transfer I can log
onto one of those 'pro' versions. Only one end of the link needs to
be the unfree version to run the file transfer program. The two on
the 'pro' version are $11/month each.
Since I can open whatever ports I want in my sdr1000 remote computer,
it has an ftp server. I guess only one end of ultraVNC needs to have
special ports open so it would fit. It is nice to be able to walk up
to any machine and access my whole suite.
My little tcp/ip data tranceiver test gets about 30-40 k bytes per
second limited by uplink bandwidth and I was planning on replacing
skype audio with it. Then hopefully having a shell gui running on
the client and the radio and working copy of the PowerSDR running on
the main machine. I understand that the new architecture may ease
this but if not I can always use CAT over the tcp/ip link.
Now, with this lashup, the cw latency runs about 500-1000 ms so I've
got that problem to address yet. Running Collins 32S1 style audio cw
over the audio link might work since there is really no need to hear
the resulting code; it has another 2-3 seconds before it will be
heard by anyone. For eme most of the cw will be automatic sequences.
Regards,
Richard
Robert McGwier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(12/24/2005 23:40)
How does LogMeIn find the specific computer targeted if it does not do
port redirection from the firewall? That is some magic I would like to
understand.
Bob
richard allen wrote:
Do either of the ends of the link require open ports for the
communication? Not having to do this was the reason I used LogMeIn.
Merry Christmas!
Richard W5SXD
Robert McGwier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(12/24/2005 14:05)
Many of us here (Phil C, Tom Clark, Rick Hambly, I believe Eric1 now)
use UltraVNC. It does file transfers seamlessly, it will compress
things automatically to transmit them if you have not already. It has a
hook driver that taps the system that really does a bang up job of
compressing the screen and getting it out the door to you. Unlike some
other offerings mentioned, the file transfer and the other goodies will
not disappear after a trial period, leaving you with a fast terminal and
nothing more. UltraVNC is open source and free for download from
source forge. It is my opinion that it positively wipes the floor with
Real and Tight. I wish someone would port it to Linux so I did not have
to use Tight any more at all.
Bob
N4HY
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, Bob - N4HY mentioned UltraVNC.
Eric
-- Original message --
From: Ken N9VV [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard, for your remote operation, you might want to look
at tightVNC. It has some extra .jpg compression features
that could increase your panadapter response:
http://www.tightvnc.com/
de Ken N9VV
richard allen wrote:
The Skype voip stuff for the audio is pretty low bandwidth and
would
work well over dialup. The LogMeIn screen and control stuff
would be
a bit sluggish but would probably be usable if you did not
care about
the panadaptor display window. I'll need to reconfigure my laptop
for dialup and give it a try.
Richard W5SXD
