Printable View
Hi,
I was just wondering if remote X connections are still popularly used?
Given alternatives like VNC etc... why would someone still prefer to
use remote X? I am just trying to set up an office environment and am
a bit confused about which solution to use.
On what critria should I choose between remote X and VNC? Why are
others, in any, still using remote X over VNC or other similar
solutions?
Is there any article etc... which discusses this in detail?
Thanks,
Sachin Garg
[email]schngrg@yahoo.com[/email] (Sachin Garg) writes:
[color=blue]
>I was just wondering if remote X connections are still popularly used?[/color]
Depends on how "remote" remote is; I use it a lot for local systems because
I find it convenient to run a remote xterm which behaves exactly like
a local xterm.
For other "remote" uses I use "ssh" and tunnel X over that.
[color=blue]
>Given alternatives like VNC etc... why would someone still prefer to
>use remote X? I am just trying to set up an office environment and am
>a bit confused about which solution to use.[/color]
VNC is far slower and much more haevy weight if all you want to do is
start a single X application on a remote system.
Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.
Sachin Garg wrote:
[color=blue]
> Hi,
>
> I was just wondering if remote X connections are still popularly used?
>
> Given alternatives like VNC etc... why would someone still prefer to
> use remote X? I am just trying to set up an office environment and am
> a bit confused about which solution to use.[/color]
I don't know what you mean by "remote" but I think it's safe to say
that lots of folks who rely on served compute power from *nix machines
also rely on X's intrinsic remote display capability.
For example, I have a Win2K box on my desk with an X server (X/Win32)
installed so that I can sit here and work on the various *nix boxen
that are available to me.
[color=blue]
>
> On what critria should I choose between remote X and VNC? Why are
> others, in any, still using remote X over VNC or other similar
> solutions?[/color]
Again, the remote capability of X is intrinsic to many systems. If you
have X you don't need VNC, unless you need some functionality of VNC
that goes beyond just sharing a display+keyboard+mouse.
If you don't have X everywhere or you need extra functionality you look
for a solution like VNC.
I suggest you first nail down your requirements and then consider the
solutions available in that context.
-- ced
[color=blue]
>
> Is there any article etc... which discusses this in detail?
>
> Thanks,
> Sachin Garg[/color]
--
Chuck Dillon
Senior Software Engineer
NimbleGen Systems Inc.
[email]schngrg@yahoo.com[/email] (Sachin Garg) writes:
[color=blue]
> Hi,
>
> I was just wondering if remote X connections are still popularly used?[/color]
I use it more or less daily, both over the local LAN and over ssh
tunnels to more distant locations.
--
Måns Rullgård
[email]mru@kth.se[/email]
Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@Sun.COM> wrote in message news:<40a0d656$0$61616$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>...[color=blue]
> [email]schngrg@yahoo.com[/email] (Sachin Garg) writes:
>[color=green]
> >I was just wondering if remote X connections are still popularly used?[/color]
>
> Depends on how "remote" remote is; I use it a lot for local systems because
> I find it convenient to run a remote xterm which behaves exactly like
> a local xterm.
>
> For other "remote" uses I use "ssh" and tunnel X over that.
>[color=green]
> >Given alternatives like VNC etc... why would someone still prefer to
> >use remote X? I am just trying to set up an office environment and am
> >a bit confused about which solution to use.[/color]
>
> VNC is far slower and much more haevy weight if all you want to do is
> start a single X application on a remote system.[/color]
I thought VNC was faster as it supports compression etc... (Tight VNC)
whereas X just sends full Bitmap images.
[color=blue]
> Casper[/color]
[email]schngrg@yahoo.com[/email] (Sachin Garg) writes:
[color=blue]
> Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@Sun.COM> wrote in message news:<40a0d656$0$61616$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>...[color=green]
>> [email]schngrg@yahoo.com[/email] (Sachin Garg) writes:
>>[color=darkred]
>> >I was just wondering if remote X connections are still popularly used?[/color]
>>
>> Depends on how "remote" remote is; I use it a lot for local systems because
>> I find it convenient to run a remote xterm which behaves exactly like
>> a local xterm.
>>
>> For other "remote" uses I use "ssh" and tunnel X over that.
>>[color=darkred]
>> >Given alternatives like VNC etc... why would someone still prefer to
>> >use remote X? I am just trying to set up an office environment and am
>> >a bit confused about which solution to use.[/color]
>>
>> VNC is far slower and much more haevy weight if all you want to do is
>> start a single X application on a remote system.[/color]
>
> I thought VNC was faster as it supports compression etc... (Tight VNC)
> whereas X just sends full Bitmap images.[/color]
X over ssh -C is compressed.
--
Måns Rullgård
[email]mru@kth.se[/email]
Chuck Dillon <spam@nimblegen.com> wrote in message news:<c7qlmh$tdp$1@grandcanyon.binc.net>...[color=blue]
> Sachin Garg wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was just wondering if remote X connections are still popularly used?
> >
> > Given alternatives like VNC etc... why would someone still prefer to
> > use remote X? I am just trying to set up an office environment and am
> > a bit confused about which solution to use.[/color]
>
> I don't know what you mean by "remote" but I think it's safe to say
> that lots of folks who rely on served compute power from *nix machines
> also rely on X's intrinsic remote display capability.
>
> For example, I have a Win2K box on my desk with an X server (X/Win32)
> installed so that I can sit here and work on the various *nix boxen
> that are available to me.
>[color=green]
> >
> > On what critria should I choose between remote X and VNC? Why are
> > others, in any, still using remote X over VNC or other similar
> > solutions?[/color]
>
> Again, the remote capability of X is intrinsic to many systems. If you
> have X you don't need VNC, unless you need some functionality of VNC
> that goes beyond just sharing a display+keyboard+mouse.
>
> If you don't have X everywhere or you need extra functionality you look
> for a solution like VNC.
>
> I suggest you first nail down your requirements and then consider the
> solutions available in that context.[/color]
I am a bit concerned about bandwidth requirements. What all does the
decision between choosing X over other alternate technologies depends
upon?
[color=blue]
> -- ced
>[color=green]
> >
> > Is there any article etc... which discusses this in detail?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sachin Garg[/color][/color]
[email]schngrg@yahoo.com[/email] (Sachin Garg) writes:
[color=blue]
>I thought VNC was faster as it supports compression etc... (Tight VNC)
>whereas X just sends full Bitmap images.[/color]
Well, VNC represents the entire desktop as bitmaps; that is inefficient
for single applications like Xterm or other text based applications:
the server sends the keypress/mouse events and the applications
draws *characters* which the Xserver converts into bitmaps.
I don't have much use for remote graphics I'm sure that for such applications
VNC might well be (much?) faster.
Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.
[email]schngrg@yahoo.com[/email] (Sachin Garg) writes:
[color=blue]
> Given alternatives like VNC etc... why would someone still prefer to
> use remote X? I am just trying to set up an office environment and am
> a bit confused about which solution to use.[/color]
You have to do extra work to have VNC on your UNIX boxes. SSH servers
are more or less standard these days (even if they weren't, you would
want to have them anyway - including to protect VNC, whose own network
protocol is just as insecure as raw X), and X is of course a part of
UNIX already.
In your opinion, what does VNC do that SSH+X does not?
--
Atro Tossavainen (Mr.) / The Institute of Biotechnology at
Systems Analyst, Techno-Amish & / the University of Helsinki, Finland,
+358-9-19158939 UNIX Dinosaur / employs me, but my opinions are my own.
< URL : http : / / www . helsinki . fi / %7E atossava / > NO FILE ATTACHMENTS
[email]schngrg@yahoo.com[/email] (Sachin Garg) writes:
[color=blue][color=green]
> > VNC is far slower and much more haevy weight if all you want to do is
> > start a single X application on a remote system.[/color]
>
> I thought VNC was faster as it supports compression etc... (Tight VNC)
> whereas X just sends full Bitmap images.[/color]
What makes you think "X just sends full Bitmap images" and not
instructions on how to draw the screen? It's not M$ RDP, you know...
VNC supporting compression is a non-issue. If you wanted to, you could
use the lbxproxy to achieve compression within X, and since you have to
protect both VNC and X with SSH anyway, SSH can do the compression part
for you.
"Faster" and "compression" only go in the same sentence in this context
when your computers are reasonably fast and your network lines are
_really_ slow. If you have just a 10 Mbps Ethernet between the machines,
forget compression. It adds so much computing overhead that any speed
gain gets more than adequately compensated for.
--
Atro Tossavainen (Mr.) / The Institute of Biotechnology at
Systems Analyst, Techno-Amish & / the University of Helsinki, Finland,
+358-9-19158939 UNIX Dinosaur / employs me, but my opinions are my own.
< URL : http : / / www . helsinki . fi / %7E atossava / > NO FILE ATTACHMENTS
In article <pgz4qqlhocv.fsf@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>, Atro Tossavainen wrote:[color=blue]
> [email]schngrg@yahoo.com[/email] (Sachin Garg) writes:
>[color=green]
>> Given alternatives like VNC etc... why would someone still prefer to
>> use remote X? I am just trying to set up an office environment and am
>> a bit confused about which solution to use.[/color]
>
> You have to do extra work to have VNC on your UNIX boxes. SSH servers
> are more or less standard these days (even if they weren't, you would
> want to have them anyway - including to protect VNC, whose own network
> protocol is just as insecure as raw X), and X is of course a part of
> UNIX already.
>
> In your opinion, what does VNC do that SSH+X does not?[/color]
You can reconnect to an existing desktop, you can share desktops and
it performs way better on networks with long latency (like ADSL
connections). In a LAN always use X itself.
--- Jan
Atro Tossavainen <Atro.Tossavainen+news@helsinki.finland.invalid> writes:
[color=blue]
>"Faster" and "compression" only go in the same sentence in this context
>when your computers are reasonably fast and your network lines are
>_really_ slow. If you have just a 10 Mbps Ethernet between the machines,
>forget compression. It adds so much computing overhead that any speed
>gain gets more than adequately compensated for.[/color]
And "generic compression" often doesn't work quite as well as
"protocol specific compression". lbx is using protocol specific
compression.
Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.
Jan Wielemaker <jan@ct.xs4all.nl> writes:
[color=blue]
>You can reconnect to an existing desktop, you can share desktops and
>it performs way better on networks with long latency (like ADSL
>connections). In a LAN always use X itself.[/color]
ADSL doesn't need to have high latency (my VPN tunnel over ADSL seems
to have a latency of around 17ms; but perhaps you consider that high :-)
Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.
Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@Sun.COM> writes:
[color=blue]
> Jan Wielemaker <jan@ct.xs4all.nl> writes:
>[color=green]
>>You can reconnect to an existing desktop, you can share desktops and
>>it performs way better on networks with long latency (like ADSL
>>connections). In a LAN always use X itself.[/color]
>
> ADSL doesn't need to have high latency (my VPN tunnel over ADSL seems
> to have a latency of around 17ms; but perhaps you consider that high :-)[/color]
I'd consider it high. My ethernet connection has 3 ms ping time
within the city.
--
Måns Rullgård
[email]mru@kth.se[/email]
Sachin Garg wrote:[color=blue]
> Hi,
>
> I was just wondering if remote X connections are still popularly used?[/color]
Absolutely.
[color=blue]
> Given alternatives like VNC etc... why would someone still prefer to
> use remote X? I am just trying to set up an office environment and am
> a bit confused about which solution to use.
>
> On what critria should I choose between remote X and VNC? Why are
> others, in any, still using remote X over VNC or other similar
> solutions?[/color]
Only in quite narrow circumstances does such a choice exist. They are
really at different levels of the user interface. An X server
multiplexes a set of input and output devices between multiple
applications (clients) in a network-transparent manner by windowing. A
VNC server is a virtual set of input and output devices that can be
controlled by a single VNC client at a time over the network. (Please
excuse the simplification).
So if you run an X server inside a VNC server (a la Xvnc), multiple X
applications from all over the network can use that X server as a
display. Additionally, a VNC client can connect from anywhere on the
network in order to take control of the whole session. And remember
that vncviewer for Unix is written as an X client..
Referring back to your specific question, you would probably only
benefit from involving VNC under special circumstances. For example, is
the network unreliable? (take advantage of VNC's statelessness). Do
users need to "hotdesk" mid-session? (ditto). Are the desktop machines
running MS Windows? (X not integrated with OS, and vncviewer.exe
available as tiny executable).
In summary, it's probably more helpful to think of "remote X" and VNC as
complementary technologies than as alternatives to one another, and the
optimum configuration for your office will depend on a lot of local
factors that you haven't (yet?) told us about.
best wishes,
Tom.
Jan Wielemaker <jan@ct.xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:<slrnca43im.eoq.jan@ct.xs4all.nl>...[color=blue]
> In article <pgz4qqlhocv.fsf@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>, Atro Tossavainen wrote:[color=green]
> > [email]schngrg@yahoo.com[/email] (Sachin Garg) writes:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> Given alternatives like VNC etc... why would someone still prefer to
> >> use remote X? I am just trying to set up an office environment and am
> >> a bit confused about which solution to use.[/color]
> >
> > You have to do extra work to have VNC on your UNIX boxes. SSH servers
> > are more or less standard these days (even if they weren't, you would
> > want to have them anyway - including to protect VNC, whose own network
> > protocol is just as insecure as raw X), and X is of course a part of
> > UNIX already.
> >
> > In your opinion, what does VNC do that SSH+X does not?[/color]
>
> You can reconnect to an existing desktop, you can share desktops and
> it performs way better on networks with long latency (like ADSL
> connections). In a LAN always use X itself.
>
> --- Jan[/color]
Better to see it than just to hear!
Try Xmanager 2.0 downloadable from [url]http://www.netsarang.com/[/url] and
compare with RealVNC downlaodable from [url]http://www.realvnc.com[/url].
RealVNC server only forwards the current screen to its client while
Xmanager as an X server can independently handle all X clients resided
in the remote host. It means the current user in the remote host is
important for using RealVNC while Xmanager does not need to care who
the current user is. It also menas RealVNC needs to create so much
heavy network traffic to forward the current screen all the time while
X server and X clients only needs to generate a little traffic for
their communication.
--- Young
[email]heeyung@hotmail.com[/email] (H. Ronald Yang) writes:
[color=blue]
> Jan Wielemaker <jan@ct.xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:<slrnca43im.eoq.jan@ct.xs4all.nl>...[color=green]
>> In article <pgz4qqlhocv.fsf@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>, Atro Tossavainen wrote:[color=darkred]
>> > [email]schngrg@yahoo.com[/email] (Sachin Garg) writes:
>> >
>> >> Given alternatives like VNC etc... why would someone still prefer to
>> >> use remote X? I am just trying to set up an office environment and am
>> >> a bit confused about which solution to use.
>> >
>> > You have to do extra work to have VNC on your UNIX boxes. SSH servers
>> > are more or less standard these days (even if they weren't, you would
>> > want to have them anyway - including to protect VNC, whose own network
>> > protocol is just as insecure as raw X), and X is of course a part of
>> > UNIX already.
>> >
>> > In your opinion, what does VNC do that SSH+X does not?[/color]
>>
>> You can reconnect to an existing desktop, you can share desktops and
>> it performs way better on networks with long latency (like ADSL
>> connections). In a LAN always use X itself.
>>
>> --- Jan[/color]
>
> Better to see it than just to hear!
>
> Try Xmanager 2.0 downloadable from [url]http://www.netsarang.com/[/url] and
> compare with RealVNC downlaodable from [url]http://www.realvnc.com[/url].
>
> RealVNC server only forwards the current screen to its client while
> Xmanager as an X server can independently handle all X clients resided
> in the remote host. It means the current user in the remote host is
> important for using RealVNC while Xmanager does not need to care who
> the current user is. It also menas RealVNC needs to create so much
> heavy network traffic to forward the current screen all the time while
> X server and X clients only needs to generate a little traffic for
> their communication.[/color]
This is just plain wrong. My copy of RealVNC creates a new X server
without a physical screen for the clients to connect to. The VNC
viewer receives the content of this virtual screen using an efficient
protocol. Using it over an ADSL connection is quite smooth.
--
Måns Rullgård
[email]mru@kth.se[/email]
Måns Rullgård <mru@kth.se> wrote in message news:<yw1x1xky7adu.fsf@kth.se>...[color=blue]
> [email]heeyung@hotmail.com[/email] (H. Ronald Yang) writes:
>[color=green]
> > Jan Wielemaker <jan@ct.xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:<slrnca43im.eoq.jan@ct.xs4all.nl>...[color=darkred]
> >> In article <pgz4qqlhocv.fsf@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>, Atro Tossavainen wrote:
> >> > [email]schngrg@yahoo.com[/email] (Sachin Garg) writes:
> >> >
> >> >> Given alternatives like VNC etc... why would someone still prefer to
> >> >> use remote X? I am just trying to set up an office environment and am
> >> >> a bit confused about which solution to use.
> >> >
> >> > You have to do extra work to have VNC on your UNIX boxes. SSH servers
> >> > are more or less standard these days (even if they weren't, you would
> >> > want to have them anyway - including to protect VNC, whose own network
> >> > protocol is just as insecure as raw X), and X is of course a part of
> >> > UNIX already.
> >> >
> >> > In your opinion, what does VNC do that SSH+X does not?
> >>
> >> You can reconnect to an existing desktop, you can share desktops and
> >> it performs way better on networks with long latency (like ADSL
> >> connections). In a LAN always use X itself.
> >>
> >> --- Jan[/color]
> >
> > Better to see it than just to hear!
> >
> > Try Xmanager 2.0 downloadable from [url]http://www.netsarang.com/[/url] and
> > compare with RealVNC downlaodable from [url]http://www.realvnc.com[/url].
> >
> > RealVNC server only forwards the current screen to its client while
> > Xmanager as an X server can independently handle all X clients resided
> > in the remote host. It means the current user in the remote host is
> > important for using RealVNC while Xmanager does not need to care who
> > the current user is. It also menas RealVNC needs to create so much
> > heavy network traffic to forward the current screen all the time while
> > X server and X clients only needs to generate a little traffic for
> > their communication.[/color]
>
> This is just plain wrong. My copy of RealVNC creates a new X server
> without a physical screen for the clients to connect to. The VNC
> viewer receives the content of this virtual screen using an efficient
> protocol. Using it over an ADSL connection is quite smooth.[/color]
Although I admit that RealVNC is "using an efficient protocol", I
still think that PC X server solution is faster/better than RealVNC
solution for most of people who need to work in that environment for a
quite while.
I strongly recommend anybody reading this to try both solutions, then
he will know what he needs.
[email]heeyung@hotmail.com[/email] (H. Ronald Yang) writes:
[color=blue]
> Although I admit that RealVNC is "using an efficient protocol", I
> still think that PC X server solution is faster/better than RealVNC
> solution for most of people who need to work in that environment for a
> quite while.[/color]
On a LAN a regular X server is to be preferred. Over low bandwidth
or high latency links VNC may perform better.
--
Måns Rullgård
[email]mru@kth.se[/email]
Tom JONES <T.Jones@cs.ucl.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<c954us$2vo2$1@uns-a.ucl.ac.uk>...[color=blue]
> Sachin Garg wrote:[color=green]
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was just wondering if remote X connections are still popularly used?[/color]
>
> Absolutely.
>[color=green]
> > Given alternatives like VNC etc... why would someone still prefer to
> > use remote X? I am just trying to set up an office environment and am
> > a bit confused about which solution to use.
> >
> > On what critria should I choose between remote X and VNC? Why are
> > others, in any, still using remote X over VNC or other similar
> > solutions?[/color]
>
> Only in quite narrow circumstances does such a choice exist. They are
> really at different levels of the user interface. An X server
> multiplexes a set of input and output devices between multiple
> applications (clients) in a network-transparent manner by windowing. A
> VNC server is a virtual set of input and output devices that can be
> controlled by a single VNC client at a time over the network. (Please
> excuse the simplification).
>
> So if you run an X server inside a VNC server (a la Xvnc), multiple X
> applications from all over the network can use that X server as a
> display. Additionally, a VNC client can connect from anywhere on the
> network in order to take control of the whole session. And remember
> that vncviewer for Unix is written as an X client..
>
> Referring back to your specific question, you would probably only
> benefit from involving VNC under special circumstances. For example, is
> the network unreliable? (take advantage of VNC's statelessness). Do
> users need to "hotdesk" mid-session? (ditto). Are the desktop machines
> running MS Windows? (X not integrated with OS, and vncviewer.exe
> available as tiny executable).
>
> In summary, it's probably more helpful to think of "remote X" and VNC as
> complementary technologies than as alternatives to one another, and the
> optimum configuration for your office will depend on a lot of local
> factors that you haven't (yet?) told us about.
>
> best wishes,
> Tom.[/color]
Totally agree with you.