On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:01:23 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
(...)
> 3. NX: as far as I understand this enhances the pure X protocol to make
> it usable over the internet (both speed and security). Unfortunately
> it's non-free.
There some GPL implementations, like "FreeNX" and the most recent from
On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 13:01 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Du, 26 iun 11, 03:11:51, Eric d'Halibut wrote:
> > I'm thinking that in order to set up a remote X login to a given
> > machine, that X must be running and configured on that machine. But X
> > doesn't want to configure itself on a "virt
On Du, 26 iun 11, 03:11:51, Eric d'Halibut wrote:
> I'm thinking that in order to set up a remote X login to a given
> machine, that X must be running and configured on that machine. But X
> doesn't want to configure itself on a "virtual private server" that
> has NO PHYSICAL VIDEO CARD, or so it s
SOLVED!
On 6/27/11, William Hopkins wrote:
> Anyway, what does `netstat -nlp |grep vnc` output?
This was just the debugging tip I needed! I've lost the output, but it
contained an entry '127.0.0.1:5901' which brought to mind the strange
(to me) presence of the argument '-localhost' in the serve
On 06/27/11 at 12:47am, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:41 PM, William Hopkins
> wrote:
> > On 06/26/11 at 11:29pm, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:25 PM, William Hopkins
> >> wrote:
> >> > On 06/26/11 at 09:54pm, Eric d'Halibut wrote:
> >> >> On 6
On 06/27/11 at 01:49am, Eric d'Halibut wrote:
> On 6/26/11, William Hopkins wrote:
>
> > x11vnc is for creating a VNC instance to an existing X server. You just want
> > a VNC server: look into tightvncserver.
>
> Yes, that is what I have running now, I think
>
> >From 'ps ax':
>
> 27765 pts/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 27/06/11 04:25, William Hopkins wrote:
> On 06/26/11 at 09:54pm, Eric d'Halibut wrote:
>> On 6/26/11, Gregory Seidman wrote:
>>
I am going to try x11vnc. Thank you all!
>>
>>> Not a bad choice, but not necessarily the best either. It depends o
On 6/26/11, William Hopkins wrote:
> x11vnc is for creating a VNC instance to an existing X server. You just want
> a VNC server: look into tightvncserver.
Yes, that is what I have running now, I think
>From 'ps ax':
27765 pts/1S 0:00 Xtightvnc :01 -desktop X -auth /home/bob/.Xauthor
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:41 PM, William Hopkins wrote:
> On 06/26/11 at 11:29pm, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:25 PM, William Hopkins
>> wrote:
>> > On 06/26/11 at 09:54pm, Eric d'Halibut wrote:
>> >> On 6/26/11, Gregory Seidman wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> I am going to try
On 06/26/11 at 11:29pm, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:25 PM, William Hopkins
> wrote:
> > On 06/26/11 at 09:54pm, Eric d'Halibut wrote:
> >> On 6/26/11, Gregory Seidman wrote:
> >>
> >> >> I am going to try x11vnc. Thank you all!
> >>
> >> > Not a bad choice, but not nece
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:25 PM, William Hopkins wrote:
> On 06/26/11 at 09:54pm, Eric d'Halibut wrote:
>> On 6/26/11, Gregory Seidman wrote:
>>
>> >> I am going to try x11vnc. Thank you all!
>>
>> > Not a bad choice, but not necessarily the best either. It depends on your
>> > purpose.
>>
>> My
On 06/26/11 at 09:54pm, Eric d'Halibut wrote:
> On 6/26/11, Gregory Seidman wrote:
>
> >> I am going to try x11vnc. Thank you all!
>
> > Not a bad choice, but not necessarily the best either. It depends on your
> > purpose.
>
> My purpose, at this early stage, is simplicity itself: I have a
> "
On 6/26/11, Gregory Seidman wrote:
>> I am going to try x11vnc. Thank you all!
> Not a bad choice, but not necessarily the best either. It depends on your
> purpose.
My purpose, at this early stage, is simplicity itself: I have a
"virtual private server" up and running -- root access and all th
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 01:44:12PM -0400, Eric d'Halibut wrote:
> On 6/26/11, Gregory Seidman wrote:
>
> > The other alternative is XDMCP, which is designed for this sort of thing.
>
> I don't think so. It -- XDMCP -- afaik requires a running X, and X
> requires a video device. I learn that even
On 06/26/11 at 01:03pm, Gregory Seidman wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 10:59:52AM -0400, William Hopkins wrote:
> > On 06/26/11 at 03:11am, Eric d'Halibut wrote:
> > > I'm thinking that in order to set up a remote X login to a given
> > > machine, that X must be running and configured on that mac
On 6/26/11, Gregory Seidman wrote:
> The other alternative is XDMCP, which is designed for this sort of thing.
I don't think so. It -- XDMCP -- afaik requires a running X, and X
requires a video device. I learn that even X.org's "dummy" driver is
itself a dummy!
I am going to try x11vnc. Thank
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 10:59:52AM -0400, William Hopkins wrote:
> On 06/26/11 at 03:11am, Eric d'Halibut wrote:
> > I'm thinking that in order to set up a remote X login to a given
> > machine, that X must be running and configured on that machine. But X
> > doesn't want to configure itself on a "
On 06/26/11 at 03:11am, Eric d'Halibut wrote:
> I'm thinking that in order to set up a remote X login to a given
> machine, that X must be running and configured on that machine. But X
> doesn't want to configure itself on a "virtual private server" that
> has NO PHYSICAL VIDEO CARD, or so it seems
On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 03:11:51 -0400, Eric d'Halibut wrote:
> I'm thinking that in order to set up a remote X login to a given
> machine, that X must be running and configured on that machine.
I think you can make use of x forwarding, that is, running the X server
from machine where you are conne
I'm thinking that in order to set up a remote X login to a given
machine, that X must be running and configured on that machine. But X
doesn't want to configure itself on a "virtual private server" that
has NO PHYSICAL VIDEO CARD, or so it seems to me at present.
But surely all the computing horse
20 matches
Mail list logo
