VNC, or a hardware KVM switch?

--
Richard Silverman
res@qoxp.net

2005-12-28, Responding to Richard E. Silverman...
>
> VNC, or a hardware KVM switch?
>

They are options, but I was hoping to avoid adding more
hardware, or loading up on more software, just to save
having to swivel to another keyboard that takes up more
deskspace.

I suppose the general logic would be that if you're going to
use a remote control mechanism like ssh, you may as well use
just the client monitor as well. I'd like to leave the
internet machine's display on the internet machine.

I was thinking that if I can run apps from the internet
machine on the offline machine, why not just remote control
the internet machine via ssh? Or is this beyond the
design/function of ssh maybe?


Mike@N.UK
--
----
* MikesBrain+WebStuff @ http://tinyurl.com/5ayqt
- Schauen Sie immer auf der hellen Seite des Lebens!

MikesBrain writes:

> 2005-12-28, Responding to Richard E. Silverman...
> >
> > VNC, or a hardware KVM switch?
> >
>
> They are options, but I was hoping to avoid adding more
> hardware, or loading up on more software, just to save
> having to swivel to another keyboard that takes up more
> deskspace.

Well yer gonna need one or the other cus SSH ain't gonna get you where
you want to go by itself. Unless everything you want to do over the
internet machine is command line oriented. SSH won't give you full
function on the 2nd machine unless the internet machine is a unix box
and you also add X server software to the other machine. VNC is a
little better alternative. VNC is also free and gives you full
graphical control of the desktop gui (as X + ssh would), but has the
additional benefit of reconnectable sessions.

A KVM switch uses a single keyboard mouse and video display to switch
among controlling multiple machines. The only hardware you'd be
adding is the switch and its associated cables, which are quite small
and do not take up desk space. You'd push a button and suddenly your
console is connected to the other machine.

With that, you could have your "offline" machine be truly offline.
That network connection and ssh between them wouldn't be required.
However, ssh and a network is very handy for many things, but they do
come at a price of being on the network and susceptible to being
penetrated, whilst a disconnected machine becomes awfully hard to hack
remotely.

One possibility, a Linksys 2-port KVM with integrated cables. Low
cost. Dunno how nice it is though.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16817107702

VNC (server and client, available for all platforms that matter)
http://www.realvnc.com/download.html
see also TightVNC, UltraVNC and others.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

>>>As both are on the same physical desk, all that is required is that one
>>>machine's keyboard/mouse can control both. (Not simultaniously of course,
>>>but easily switching between machines) The display would remain on the
>>>internet machine, and be controlled by the other machine's keyboard/mouse
>>>remotely.

>Richard E. Silverman:
>> VNC, or a hardware KVM switch?

MikesBrain wrote:
>They are options, but I was hoping to avoid adding more
>hardware, or loading up on more software

I'm not sure I understand. You want to share a keyboard and mouse (but not
display), but you don't want to use hardware or software to do so?

If you want a software solution, take a look at Synergy
(http://synergy2.sourceforge.net/) - it does exactly what you want: shares
keyboard and mouse without sharing a display. It can tunnel over SSH
(like most tcp apps) if encryption is desired. A KVM (and just don't connect
the displays to it, leave them separate) is a fine hardware idea.

VNC will remote the display in addition to the mouse and keyboard.

>I suppose the general logic would be that if you're going to
>use a remote control mechanism like ssh, you may as well use
>just the client monitor as well

SSH is not a remote control mechanism, nor does it claim to be. It's job is
to encrypt a teminal connection or tunnel.

>I was thinking that if I can run apps from the internet
>machine on the offline machine, why not just remote control
>the internet machine via ssh? Or is this beyond the
>design/function of ssh maybe?

Yes. If you want remote control of a machine, you must use remote control
hardware or software. You may choose to use it over SSH if you want the
connection and encryption support that it provides, but ssh by itself doesn't
address this problem.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net

2005-12-28, Responding to Todd H....

[...]
> A KVM switch uses a single keyboard mouse and video display to switch
> among controlling multiple machines. The only hardware you'd be
> adding is the switch and its associated cables, which are quite small
> and do not take up desk space. You'd push a button and suddenly your
> console is connected to the other machine.
>
> With that, you could have your "offline" machine be truly offline.
> That network connection and ssh between them wouldn't be required.
> However, ssh and a network is very handy for many things, but they do
> come at a price of being on the network and susceptible to being
> penetrated, whilst a disconnected machine becomes awfully hard to hack
> remotely.

You make a damn fine case for a KVM here. I think I need to
reconsider this option.

Thanks for the "logics".


Mike@N.UK
--
----
* MikesBrain+WebStuff @ http://tinyurl.com/5ayqt
- Schauen Sie immer auf der hellen Seite des Lebens!

2005-12-28, Responding to Mark Rafn...

[...]
> SSH is not a remote control mechanism, nor does it claim
> to be. It's job is to encrypt a teminal connection or
> tunnel.
>

Yeah, I kinda figured that, but one does become confidant
that anything is possible with Open Source software.

I think that KVM idea is looking the more practical idea.

Thanks for the help.


Mike@N.UK
--
----
* MikesBrain+WebStuff @ http://tinyurl.com/5ayqt
- Schauen Sie immer auf der hellen Seite des Lebens!

"MikesBrain" wrote in message
news:qVEsf.28818$D47.13156@fe3.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
> 2005-12-28, Responding to Mark Rafn...
>
> [...]
>> SSH is not a remote control mechanism, nor does it claim
>> to be. It's job is to encrypt a teminal connection or
>> tunnel.
>>
>
> Yeah, I kinda figured that, but one does become confidant
> that anything is possible with Open Source software.
>
> I think that KVM idea is looking the more practical idea.
>
> Thanks for the help.

It won't let you cut&paste things from one machine's console to another.
I've found that to be very useful for doing side-by-side comparisons.

What you need depends on what you plan to do with it. I've used KVM's, VNC,
and X Windows from all sorts of platforms to all sorts of others, and they
all have trade-offs.

MikesBrain writes:

>I can find plenty of stuff on presenting a remote desktop or
>apps on the client machine using ssh, but I'm struggling a
>little with this one... (Winter brain lockdown.)

>Two machines, almost side by side. One is used for internet
>work, and the other is nailed down apart from an ssh
>connection to the internet machine. As both are on the same
>physical desk, all that is required is that one machine's
>keyboard/mouse can control both. (Not simultaniously of
>course, but easily switching between machines) The display
>would remain on the internet machine, and be controlled by
>the other machine's keyboard/mouse remotely.

>Can somebody point me at some documentation, or give me a
>shove in the right direction on this one?

This is a physical question not a software one. There exist switches which
allow you to connect one keyboard/monitor/mouse to a variety of machines.
Some are mechanical but most now are electronic.



>Mike@N.UK
>--
>----
>* MikesBrain+WebStuff @ http://tinyurl.com/5ayqt
>- Schauen Sie immer auf der hellen Seite des Lebens!

MikesBrain writes:

>2005-12-28, Responding to Richard E. Silverman...
>>
>> VNC, or a hardware KVM switch?
>>

>They are options, but I was hoping to avoid adding more
>hardware, or loading up on more software, just to save
>having to swivel to another keyboard that takes up more
>deskspace.

>I suppose the general logic would be that if you're going to
>use a remote control mechanism like ssh, you may as well use
>just the client monitor as well. I'd like to leave the
>internet machine's display on the internet machine.

>I was thinking that if I can run apps from the internet
>machine on the offline machine, why not just remote control
>the internet machine via ssh? Or is this beyond the
>design/function of ssh maybe?

You have that extra machine disconnected from everything for a reason. Now
you want to connect it up. If you do not give a damn about the securityof
that machine, then use ssh. You can tunnel X across ssh.



>Mike@N.UK
>--
>----
>* MikesBrain+WebStuff @ http://tinyurl.com/5ayqt
>- Schauen Sie immer auf der hellen Seite des Lebens!