[lug] remote xterm question...
bgiles at coyotesong.com
Sat May 10 16:52:30 MDT 2003
Peter Hutnick wrote:
> It seems like you might /really/ mean that you want your Windows PC to
> emulate an X Terminal (which is a piece of hardware).
There are some X terminal programs for Windows out there. I've
seen them at a few sites - they aren't bad, but if you're used to
Unix you'll still find them annoyingly Windows-centric.
I disagree with describing X terminals as only pieces of hardware.
X defines a wire protocol for use between client and server, and
it's the same protocol regardless of whether it goes across your
ethernet connection, the loopback device, or a Unix socket. There
were some hardware X terminals produced in the 80s, but hardware
prices have long been so low that this would have been a false
optimization. Today you would set up the same thing with diskless
system using a PXE network boot.
Does VNC use the X protocol? Some of the documentation refers to
communications occuring over port 5090, not 8000 et seq.
This isn't a moot point. If it really uses the X protocol, it
makes much more sense to me to modify the X startup scripts to
start up multiple servers than to use an entirely unrelated
server. You can then use the regular XDM login procedure, etc.
> I routinely connect from
> work to my home box (via a Comcast cable modem) at 950x525x16bit color and
> the performance is acceptable to me.
Is it safe? X has a couple native cryptographic authentication
methods, or could be run through a VPN or (ugh) SSH tunnel. It
looked like VNC runs naked.
> Someone mentioned telnet. There is no valid reason to run telnet.
> Period. Telnet bad.
Stock telnet bad. There are some versions of telnet that support
strong authentication and encryption. Some secadmins may prefer a
fully kerberized network over individually configured SSHD daemons.
More information about the LUG