Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Why? | 13 comments | Create New Account
Click here to return to the 'Why?' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Why?
Authored by: sgi_oh_too on Apr 17, '03 10:52:50AM

Why not just use a vnc client of mac os x and just skip using X11 at all? Seems ridiculous to use X at all if you are using vnc anyways.

Furthermore, explain why remote X sessions are bad and why you would want to use horribly slow (in comparison) vnc?

Remote X sessions are one of the really cool features of X. I understand using vnc for windows machines (since terminal services is a pain and not truly free) ... but for X I don't understand why since X sessions are just fine.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Why?
Authored by: eagle on Apr 17, '03 11:38:42AM

Just try running an X Window System session over a slow link and you'll
see the problem with the X Window System, and why vnc is so desirable.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Why?
Authored by: truhe on Apr 17, '03 12:18:13PM

I used StarOffice 5.2 over a 33.6 modem connection with x11 tunneled through ssh with maximum compression. it took a while to load all damn toolbar icons, but after that I was able to work with StarOffice like with a local application! Scrolling, typing etc., everything was smooth. Toolbar switching took some time though :).

On a total different side are kde-apps, which take hours for loading and then are unusable. kmail seemed to be a huge bitmap, including fonts.

At work I work with PC Anywhere and connect to a customer using a ISDN connection. I'd love to use X11 instead, because PCA is totally slow compared with.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Why?
Authored by: eagle on Apr 17, '03 12:41:28PM

Being a Mac- & Unix-only guy, I don't have any experience with PC
Anywhere, but I have found both VNC and Timbuktu to have acceptable
performance over a link that slow. Perhaps you could get your customer
to try one of those options?



[ Reply to This | # ]
Huh?
Authored by: macubergeek on Apr 17, '03 03:55:14PM

I've read all the comments and I still don't understand why you would use vnc for LOCALHOST connection? sounds unnecessary.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Huh?
Authored by: Wheaty73 on Apr 18, '03 12:07:44AM

Like I said, it keeps your X11 session seperate from your X
session, reducing clutter on your desktop. All your X11 apps will
continue to run, even if you quit Apples X11.app, or log out, in
their own vnc workspace. This is great if you need to let
someone else use your machine!

By only allowing connections to localhost, it is also more secure
since you will either need to be logged in to the machine, or port
forwarding through SSH.

Wheaty



[ Reply to This | # ]
Huh?
Authored by: Wheaty73 on Apr 18, '03 01:30:05AM

Ah! Sorry, I have just realised what you meant.
Running vncserver :2 forces it to draw its windows on display 2,
which since I don't have 3 monitors, is a virtual display (this is
how it prevents desktop clutter). To view this display, I need to
connect to it, by telling the viewer to look at display 2 on the
local machine. When I close the viewer, the vncserver continues
to run on its virtual display so all the X11 applications stay in
the state I leave them.

HTH

Wheaty



[ Reply to This | # ]
Why?
Authored by: readparse on Apr 17, '03 07:34:42PM

X11 rocks. VNC rocks. Depends on what you need and why. I happen to agree with you about X11, but VNC truly rocks.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Why?
Authored by: kerouassady on Apr 18, '03 08:45:30AM

For you people who still don't get this, think like the way Windows uses Terminal Services and the concept of workspaces.



[ Reply to This | # ]