Exceed onDemand versus VNC - Xwindows

This is a discussion on Exceed onDemand versus VNC - Xwindows ; I currently use VNC to access a Solaris 9 host. I like it. My sysadmin is pushing people to use Exceed onDemand. One thing I really like about VNC is the connect/reconnect feature---if the network goes down or the connection ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27

Thread: Exceed onDemand versus VNC

  1. Exceed onDemand versus VNC

    I currently use VNC to access a Solaris 9 host. I like it.

    My sysadmin is pushing people to use Exceed onDemand.

    One thing I really like about VNC is the connect/reconnect feature---if the
    network goes down or the connection is somehow lost, all the processes
    living within the X windows in the VNC desktop stay alive. It's also handy
    when I want processing to continue yet want to turn my PC off---I just kill
    the client, turn off the PC, go to bed, wake up and reconnect.

    The sysadmin claims that Exceed onDemand has a suspend feature. But does it
    have the ability to keep processes "alive" on the Solaris host if the
    connection between my PC and the Solaris box dies?

    Also, last time I tried Exceed from home it was unusuable. I had been using
    X-Win32 (like Exceed, but cheaper and IIRC without as much fancy TCP/IP
    stuff) at work to connect from a PC to a Solaris box, and when I tried it
    from home, both it and Exceed were unusable (this was over DSL)---things
    took forever. My diagnosis at the time was that it wasn't really a
    bandwidth problem but a network latency problem with X, which VNC finesses.
    Is that likely to be any better with Exceed a few years on now?

    TIA,

    S



  2. Re: Exceed onDemand versus VNC

    In article <90U4d.500$iD6.440@trnddc05>,
    "sinister" writes:
    > I currently use VNC to access a Solaris 9 host. I like it.
    >
    > My sysadmin is pushing people to use Exceed onDemand.


    When you may both be much better off with NX:

    http://www.nomachine.com/

    --
    -Peter Tribble
    MRC Rosalind Franklin Centre for Genomics Research
    http://www.rfcgr.mrc.ac.uk/~ptribble/

  3. Re: Exceed onDemand versus VNC


    "Peter C. Tribble" wrote in message
    news:cj130v$j08$1@helium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk...
    > In article <90U4d.500$iD6.440@trnddc05>,
    > "sinister" writes:
    >> I currently use VNC to access a Solaris 9 host. I like it.
    >>
    >> My sysadmin is pushing people to use Exceed onDemand.

    >
    > When you may both be much better off with NX:
    >
    > http://www.nomachine.com/


    How does it compare to VNC in respect to the questions I posted?

    If I turn my PC off, will the applications I'm running continue to run on
    the Solaris box, as is the case with VNC? (With me reconnecting later.)

    >
    > --
    > -Peter Tribble
    > MRC Rosalind Franklin Centre for Genomics Research
    > http://www.rfcgr.mrc.ac.uk/~ptribble/




  4. Re: Exceed onDemand versus VNC

    "sinister" writes:

    >One thing I really like about VNC is the connect/reconnect feature---if the
    >network goes down or the connection is somehow lost, all the processes
    >living within the X windows in the VNC desktop stay alive.


    This can be done in X with a pseudoserver (similar to what VNC does). The X
    server you use (Exceed or whatever) wouldn't matter in this case.
    http://www.software-facilities.com/x...ware/xmove.php

    --kyler

  5. Re: Exceed onDemand versus VNC

    In article ,
    "sinister" writes:
    >
    > "Peter C. Tribble" wrote in message
    > news:cj130v$j08$1@helium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk...
    >> In article <90U4d.500$iD6.440@trnddc05>,
    >> "sinister" writes:
    >>> I currently use VNC to access a Solaris 9 host. I like it.
    >>>
    >>> My sysadmin is pushing people to use Exceed onDemand.

    >>
    >> When you may both be much better off with NX:
    >>
    >> http://www.nomachine.com/

    >
    > How does it compare to VNC in respect to the questions I posted?
    >
    > If I turn my PC off, will the applications I'm running continue to run on
    > the Solaris box, as is the case with VNC? (With me reconnecting later.)


    That's present in the current development version, so it's not in the
    current production version but will be in the next.

    And for most things it's way faster than VNC, and fully encrypted.

    But the only way to see how well it works for you, with your
    applications in your environment, is to actually test it. (Which needs
    your sysadmin to get involved.)

    --
    -Peter Tribble
    MRC Rosalind Franklin Centre for Genomics Research
    http://www.rfcgr.mrc.ac.uk/~ptribble/

  6. Re: Exceed onDemand versus VNC


    "Kyler Laird" wrote in message
    news:6qnd22-3mc.ln1@lairds.us...
    > "sinister" writes:
    >
    >>One thing I really like about VNC is the connect/reconnect feature---if
    >>the
    >>network goes down or the connection is somehow lost, all the processes
    >>living within the X windows in the VNC desktop stay alive.

    >
    > This can be done in X with a pseudoserver (similar to what VNC does). The
    > X


    OK. But my question is: can Exceed do this on its own, without sticking
    another layer (i.e. a pseudoserver) in between?

    If not, then in my case there's no advantage to Exceed over VNC...


    > server you use (Exceed or whatever) wouldn't matter in this case.
    > http://www.software-facilities.com/x...ware/xmove.php
    >
    > --kyler




  7. Re: Exceed onDemand versus VNC

    "sinister" writes:

    >>>One thing I really like about VNC is the connect/reconnect feature---if
    >>>the
    >>>network goes down or the connection is somehow lost, all the processes
    >>>living within the X windows in the VNC desktop stay alive.

    >>
    >> This can be done in X with a pseudoserver (similar to what VNC does). The
    >> X


    >OK. But my question is: can Exceed do this on its own, without sticking
    >another layer (i.e. a pseudoserver) in between?


    In the X server? Of course not. I thought it was obvious that there has
    to be something to maintain the session.

    >If not, then in my case there's no advantage to Exceed over VNC...


    Right, they both require something to keep running.

    --kyler

  8. Re: Exceed onDemand versus VNC


    "Kyler Laird" wrote in message
    news:2lri22-83e.ln1@lairds.us...
    > "sinister" writes:
    >
    >>>>One thing I really like about VNC is the connect/reconnect feature---if
    >>>>the
    >>>>network goes down or the connection is somehow lost, all the processes
    >>>>living within the X windows in the VNC desktop stay alive.
    >>>
    >>> This can be done in X with a pseudoserver (similar to what VNC does).
    >>> The
    >>> X

    >
    >>OK. But my question is: can Exceed do this on its own, without sticking
    >>another layer (i.e. a pseudoserver) in between?

    >
    > In the X server? Of course not. I thought it was obvious that there has
    > to be something to maintain the session.


    Right. I was just confirming.

    >
    >>If not, then in my case there's no advantage to Exceed over VNC...

    >
    > Right, they both require something to keep running.


    In terms of what the user sees, VNC requires nothing extra.

    > --kyler




  9. Re: Exceed onDemand versus VNC

    "sinister" writes:

    >>>If not, then in my case there's no advantage to Exceed over VNC...

    >>
    >> Right, they both require something to keep running.


    >In terms of what the user sees, VNC requires nothing extra.


    Now we're right back where I started. If you use put xmove on the application
    server (instead of VNC), then in terms of what the user sees, Exceed requires
    nothing extra. (Heck, in terms of what the admin sees, there's nothing "extra"
    beyond what VNC requires.)

    My point was that there's little difference between VNC and X in this regard.
    I suggest that you concentrate on other differences you found. This one isn't
    valid.

    --kyler

  10. Re: Exceed onDemand versus VNC

    Kyler Laird wrote:
    > Now we're right back where I started. If you use put xmove on the application
    > server (instead of VNC), then in terms of what the user sees, Exceed requires
    > nothing extra. (Heck, in terms of what the admin sees, there's nothing "extra"
    > beyond what VNC requires.)


    The URL given above points to a package which hasn't been updated since
    1997. Of course it's possible the application is that stable but still,
    the age raises concerns about how viable this particular implementation
    is. Are you actually using it in 2004 successfully?

    --
    Thanks,
    M.Biswas

  11. Re: Exceed onDemand versus VNC


    "Kyler Laird" wrote in message
    news:t7dl22-rrs.ln1@lairds.us...
    > "sinister" writes:
    >
    >>>>If not, then in my case there's no advantage to Exceed over VNC...
    >>>
    >>> Right, they both require something to keep running.

    >
    >>In terms of what the user sees, VNC requires nothing extra.

    >
    > Now we're right back where I started. If you use put xmove on the
    > application
    > server (instead of VNC), then in terms of what the user sees, Exceed
    > requires
    > nothing extra. (Heck, in terms of what the admin sees, there's nothing
    > "extra"
    > beyond what VNC requires.)


    But, first, you haven't explained what xmove does. Does it apply to *every*
    X application? Or just the ones the user designates? Do you have to apply
    it to a particular application before using that application?

    Second, I count:
    VNC: 2 pieces of software (VNC server, client)
    Exceed plus xmove: 3 pieces of software (Exceed server, client, and xmove)

    Maybe there's things I'm not counting that I should be.

    Then there's the point that Mohun Biswas makes---that the xmove package
    hasn't been updated since 1997.

    > My point was that there's little difference between VNC and X in this
    > regard.
    > I suggest that you concentrate on other differences you found. This one
    > isn't
    > valid.
    >
    > --kyler




  12. Re: Exceed onDemand versus VNC

    Mohun Biswas writes:

    [on xmove]

    >The URL given above points to a package which hasn't been updated since
    >1997. Of course it's possible the application is that stable but still,
    >the age raises concerns about how viable this particular implementation
    >is. Are you actually using it in 2004 successfully?


    I haven't used it and I'm not recommending it. It's just an example
    of how X can be made to function (in one aspect) like VNC.

    Perhaps this will be more satisfying.
    http://ximove.com/

    I prefer VNC (in part because there are Java applet versions of the
    viewer). I'll probably use FreeNX when it's a Debian packages (and
    includes a Java applet viewer).

    --kyler

  13. Re: Exceed onDemand versus VNC

    "sinister" writes:

    >Second, I count:
    >VNC: 2 pieces of software (VNC server, client)
    >Exceed plus xmove: 3 pieces of software (Exceed server, client, and xmove)


    >Maybe there's things I'm not counting that I should be.


    The X terminology is confusing. I'd write it like this.
    VNC: 3 pieces of software (VNC server, VNC client, applications)
    Exceed plus xmove: 3 pieces of software (xmove, Exceed server, applications)

    --kyler

  14. Re: Exceed onDemand versus VNC


    "Kyler Laird" wrote in message
    news:vgpp22-7f3.ln1@lairds.us...
    > "sinister" writes:
    >
    >>Second, I count:
    >>VNC: 2 pieces of software (VNC server, client)
    >>Exceed plus xmove: 3 pieces of software (Exceed server, client, and
    >>xmove)

    >
    >>Maybe there's things I'm not counting that I should be.

    >
    > The X terminology is confusing. I'd write it like this.
    > VNC: 3 pieces of software (VNC server, VNC client, applications)
    > Exceed plus xmove: 3 pieces of software (xmove, Exceed server,
    > applications)


    You forgot the Exceed client.

    >
    > --kyler




  15. Re: Exceed onDemand versus VNC

    I don't think there is an Exceed 'client' per se. Exceed runs as an X
    server on the PC, not the host.

    RAS

    sinister wrote:
    > "Kyler Laird" wrote in message
    > news:vgpp22-7f3.ln1@lairds.us...
    >
    >>"sinister" writes:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Second, I count:
    >>>VNC: 2 pieces of software (VNC server, client)
    >>>Exceed plus xmove: 3 pieces of software (Exceed server, client, and
    >>>xmove)

    >>
    >>>Maybe there's things I'm not counting that I should be.

    >>
    >>The X terminology is confusing. I'd write it like this.
    >>VNC: 3 pieces of software (VNC server, VNC client, applications)
    >>Exceed plus xmove: 3 pieces of software (xmove, Exceed server,
    >>applications)

    >
    >
    > You forgot the Exceed client.
    >
    >
    >>--kyler

    >
    >
    >



  16. Re: Exceed onDemand versus VNC


    "Richard Santink" wrote in message
    news:415AAFCA.50104@nortel.ca...
    >I don't think there is an Exceed 'client' per se. Exceed runs as an X
    >server on the PC, not the host.


    AFAICT, you're wrong:
    http://mimage.hummingbird.com/alt_co.../ds/eod_ds.pdf

    While indeed one speaks of X servers running on the local host, not the
    remote host where the application is running, Exceed's own nomenclature goes
    the other way (though I'm sure they still speak of *X* server and client in
    the correct way). And you do need software at both ends---a server and a
    client.

    >
    > RAS
    >
    > sinister wrote:
    >> "Kyler Laird" wrote in message
    >> news:vgpp22-7f3.ln1@lairds.us...
    >>
    >>>"sinister" writes:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Second, I count:
    >>>>VNC: 2 pieces of software (VNC server, client)
    >>>>Exceed plus xmove: 3 pieces of software (Exceed server, client, and
    >>>>xmove)
    >>>
    >>>>Maybe there's things I'm not counting that I should be.
    >>>
    >>>The X terminology is confusing. I'd write it like this.
    >>>VNC: 3 pieces of software (VNC server, VNC client, applications)
    >>>Exceed plus xmove: 3 pieces of software (xmove, Exceed server,
    >>>applications)

    >>
    >>
    >> You forgot the Exceed client.
    >>
    >>
    >>>--kyler

    >>
    >>
    >>

    >




  17. Re: Exceed onDemand versus VNC

    Good enough.. as I pointed out, I wasn't positive. However, I do know,
    that Exceed itself, need only be installed on the Windows machine..
    there is no Exceed server that need be configured on the linux or unix
    host. As for their use of the terms 'server' and 'client' I'm still a
    bit foggy..

    RAS

    sinister wrote:
    > "Richard Santink" wrote in message
    > news:415AAFCA.50104@nortel.ca...
    >
    >>I don't think there is an Exceed 'client' per se. Exceed runs as an X
    >>server on the PC, not the host.

    >
    >
    > AFAICT, you're wrong:
    > http://mimage.hummingbird.com/alt_co.../ds/eod_ds.pdf
    >
    > While indeed one speaks of X servers running on the local host, not the
    > remote host where the application is running, Exceed's own nomenclature goes
    > the other way (though I'm sure they still speak of *X* server and client in
    > the correct way). And you do need software at both ends---a server and a
    > client.
    >
    >
    >>RAS
    >>
    >>sinister wrote:
    >>
    >>>"Kyler Laird" wrote in message
    >>>news:vgpp22-7f3.ln1@lairds.us...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>"sinister" writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Second, I count:
    >>>>>VNC: 2 pieces of software (VNC server, client)
    >>>>>Exceed plus xmove: 3 pieces of software (Exceed server, client, and
    >>>>>xmove)
    >>>>
    >>>>>Maybe there's things I'm not counting that I should be.
    >>>>
    >>>>The X terminology is confusing. I'd write it like this.
    >>>>VNC: 3 pieces of software (VNC server, VNC client, applications)
    >>>>Exceed plus xmove: 3 pieces of software (xmove, Exceed server,
    >>>>applications)
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>You forgot the Exceed client.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>--kyler
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >
    >



  18. Re: Exceed onDemand versus VNC


    "Richard Santink" wrote in message
    news:415B4A0C.3000005@nortel.ca...
    > Good enough.. as I pointed out, I wasn't positive.


    Fair enough.

    > However, I do know, that Exceed itself, need only be installed on the
    > Windows machine.. there is no Exceed server that need be configured on the
    > linux or unix host.


    That's possible.

    The particular Exceed product I'm looking at is Exceed onDemand.

    I do things over DSL, between work and home. When I did this kind of thing
    before, I tried two X servers, X-Win32 (basically, like Exceed but without
    stuff you don't need, and cheaper), and Exceed. Perhaps (can't recall) the
    Exceed was like the product you're describing---an X server on the PC, with
    nothing on the Unix host running the "actual application".

    Both X-Win32 (which worked fine from a PC to the Unix host over the local
    ethernet at work) and Exceed were so slow as to be useless. I did a little
    research, and it seems that bandwidth isn't the only issue, but also
    "network latency." X does some kind of synchronization or something,
    whereby packets are sent back and forth. It might be OK over an ethernet,
    where I suppose the circuit time is on the order of 1 ms or less, but over
    something like DSL (with the circuit time being on the order of tens of ms),
    it'll just kill you.

    > As for their use of the terms 'server' and 'client' I'm still a bit
    > foggy..


    In this case it's probably because their "server" is serving up a special
    protocol that enables communication over a slower network (e.g. DSL) to be
    do-able. VNC (which I actually think is fine, but my sysadmin is pushing
    Exceed...) has the same nomenclature (i.e., the one opposite of the usual X
    nomenclature).

    Cheers,

    S


    >
    > RAS
    >
    > sinister wrote:
    >> "Richard Santink" wrote in message
    >> news:415AAFCA.50104@nortel.ca...
    >>
    >>>I don't think there is an Exceed 'client' per se. Exceed runs as an X
    >>>server on the PC, not the host.

    >>
    >>
    >> AFAICT, you're wrong:
    >> http://mimage.hummingbird.com/alt_co.../ds/eod_ds.pdf
    >>
    >> While indeed one speaks of X servers running on the local host, not the
    >> remote host where the application is running, Exceed's own nomenclature
    >> goes the other way (though I'm sure they still speak of *X* server and
    >> client in the correct way). And you do need software at both ends---a
    >> server and a client.
    >>
    >>
    >>>RAS
    >>>
    >>>sinister wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>"Kyler Laird" wrote in message
    >>>>news:vgpp22-7f3.ln1@lairds.us...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>"sinister" writes:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Second, I count:
    >>>>>>VNC: 2 pieces of software (VNC server, client)
    >>>>>>Exceed plus xmove: 3 pieces of software (Exceed server, client, and
    >>>>>>xmove)
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Maybe there's things I'm not counting that I should be.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>The X terminology is confusing. I'd write it like this.
    >>>>>VNC: 3 pieces of software (VNC server, VNC client, applications)
    >>>>>Exceed plus xmove: 3 pieces of software (xmove, Exceed server,
    >>>>>applications)
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>You forgot the Exceed client.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>--kyler
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>

    >>
    >>

    >




  19. Re: Exceed onDemand versus VNC

    "sinister" writes:

    >> The X terminology is confusing. I'd write it like this.
    >> VNC: 3 pieces of software (VNC server, VNC client, applications)
    >> Exceed plus xmove: 3 pieces of software (xmove, Exceed server,
    >> applications)


    >You forgot the Exceed client.


    I used the term "applications" instead of "X clients" in order to
    be more parallel with the wording in the VNC line.

    I understand that saying "Exceed server" instead of "X server" might
    be contrary to their terminology. I probably should have written
    "Exceed client."

    --kyler

  20. Re: Exceed onDemand versus VNC

    "sinister" writes:

    >The particular Exceed product I'm looking at is Exceed onDemand.


    It looks like they're providing some sort of low-bandwidth proxying.
    In this case, we're no longer talking about X. It's behaving *just*
    like VNC.

    Heck, if you want to go with a proprietary solution and get suspend/
    resume functionality, you might as well use something like XVision
    Eclipse.
    http://www.tarantella.com/products/v...ds.html#resume

    >Both X-Win32 (which worked fine from a PC to the Unix host over the local
    >ethernet at work) and Exceed were so slow as to be useless. I did a little
    >research, and it seems that bandwidth isn't the only issue, but also
    >"network latency." X does some kind of synchronization or something,
    >whereby packets are sent back and forth. It might be OK over an ethernet,
    >where I suppose the circuit time is on the order of 1 ms or less, but over
    >something like DSL (with the circuit time being on the order of tens of ms),
    >it'll just kill you.


    Yup, bandwidth/latency problems are why LBX was developed.
    http://studenthelp.itee.uq.edu.au/remote/lbx.html

    >> As for their use of the terms 'server' and 'client' I'm still a bit
    >> foggy..


    >In this case it's probably because their "server" is serving up a special
    >protocol that enables communication over a slower network (e.g. DSL) to be
    >do-able.


    Agreed.

    >VNC (which I actually think is fine, but my sysadmin is pushing
    >Exceed...) has the same nomenclature (i.e., the one opposite of the usual X
    >nomenclature).


    So he wants a less-functional (costly) proprietary solution to X proxying
    instead of an Open solution which does everything desired and more? I'd
    expect that from management, not a sysadmin.

    --kyler

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast