FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-27-2011, 03:41 AM
William Hopkins
 
Default X on a virtual server

On 06/26/11 at 11:29pm, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:25 PM, William Hopkins <we.hopkins@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 06/26/11 at 09:54pm, Eric d'Halibut wrote:
> >> On 6/26/11, Gregory Seidman <gsslist+debian@anthropohedron.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> I am going to try x11vnc. Thank you all!
> >>
> >> > Not a bad choice, but not necessarily the best either. It depends on your
> >> > purpose.
> >>
> >> My purpose, at this early stage, is simplicity itself: I have a
> >> "virtual private server" up and running -- root access and all that --
> >> and I want to have some sort of X desktop available on it that I can
> >> remotely log in to. What do you suggest? At present I feel I am close
> >> to getting the login to work, but of course there is nothing
> >> resembling an X session there (i.le window manager, Gnome or KDE).
> >
> > x11vnc is for creating a VNC instance to an existing X server. You just want a
> > VNC server: look into tightvncserver.
>
> Or NX from www.nomachine.com, which is free for personal use and is
> commercial grade software with excellent printing, USB, and shared
> session capability with quite efficient CPU and network use on both
> ends. It's a big step up from VNC.

Your post is not helpful in reply to what I have said. You basically say 'don't
listen to this guy -- come try this instead!'. I don't appreciate it.
Furthermore NX has gone closed-source and is not easier to configure or
understand. VNC is simple and is what Eric previously told us he was using.
It's right there in the quoted text.

--
Liam
 
Old 06-27-2011, 04:47 AM
Nico Kadel-Garcia
 
Default X on a virtual server

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:41 PM, William Hopkins <we.hopkins@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/26/11 at 11:29pm, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:25 PM, William Hopkins <we.hopkins@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 06/26/11 at 09:54pm, Eric d'Halibut wrote:
>> >> On 6/26/11, Gregory Seidman <gsslist+debian@anthropohedron.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> I am going to try x11vnc. Thank you all!
>> >>
>> >> > Not a bad choice, but not necessarily the best either. It depends on your
>> >> > purpose.
>> >>
>> >> My purpose, at this early stage, is simplicity itself: I have a
>> >> "virtual private server" up and running -- root access and all that --
>> >> and I want to have some sort of X desktop available on it that I can
>> >> remotely log in to. What do you suggest? At present I feel I am close
>> >> to getting the login to work, but of course there is nothing
>> >> resembling an X session there (i.le window manager, Gnome or KDE).
>> >
>> > x11vnc is for creating a VNC instance to an existing X server. You just want a
>> > VNC server: look into tightvncserver.
>>
>> Or NX from www.nomachine.com, which is free for personal use and is
>> commercial grade software with excellent printing, USB, and shared
>> session capability with quite efficient CPU and network use on both
>> ends. It's a big step up from VNC.
>
> Your post is not helpful in reply to what I have said. You basically say 'don't
> listen to this guy -- come try this instead!'. I don't appreciate it.
> Furthermore NX has gone closed-source and is not easier to configure or
> understand. VNC is simple and is what Eric previously told us he was using.
> It's right there in the quoted text.

This is confusing. I was trying to help the original poster, Gregory,
by pointing out what is, compared side-by-side, an excellent solution.
I wasn't trying to insult you, and I certainly did not ignore your
suggestions, but rather I tried to help him, as the original poster. I
am sorry if that bothers you, although in a support list, I'm not sure
how to offer a relevant suggestion without possibly insulting someone
so sensitive about alternative approaches.

As near as I could tell at the time, I personally *wrote* the first
SunOS port of VNC myself, so I've some experience with it. Would it
help to actually compare them side by side and see why I think it's
better? The change from open source is a reasonable concern, and I've
spoken with NoMachine about this as a customer. I'm actually hoping
they'll change their minds about that before the next release gets out
of alpha testing. But it's really a very good tool for remote X
servers. I'd be happy to compare it to VNC based tools, side by side.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: BANLkTi=Y1OqfmCUGnSBxOkPUmQyTVHqW=Q@mail.gmail.com ">http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTi=Y1OqfmCUGnSBxOkPUmQyTVHqW=Q@mail.gmail.com
 
Old 06-27-2011, 05:49 AM
"Eric d'Halibut"
 
Default X on a virtual server

On 6/26/11, William Hopkins <we.hopkins@gmail.com> wrote:

> x11vnc is for creating a VNC instance to an existing X server. You just want
> a VNC server: look into tightvncserver.

Yes, that is what I have running now, I think <g>

>From 'ps ax':

27765 pts/1 S 0:00 Xtightvnc :01 -desktop X -auth /home/bob/.Xauthority
27772 pts/1 Sl 0:00 gnome-session
27775 pts/1 S 0:00 /usr/lib/libgconf2-4/gconfd-2 5
27777 pts/1 S 0:00 /usr/bin/gnome-keyring-daemon

I cannot, however, connect from my remote machine. Even if I turn off
the firewalls at both ends of the link, I get a "connection refused"
when I run vncviewer. I can't even nping to port 5901, which is what
is configured. I have run xhost + to add both client and server to
access list.

Some unix weirdness somewhere....


--
No no no, my fish's name is Eric, Eric the fish. He's an halibut. I am
not a looney! Why should I be tarred with the epithet looney merely
because I have a pet halibut?


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: BANLkTikLd3pG9s9tcFOEP3Yrq2M83Gt+sQ@mail.gmail.com ">http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTikLd3pG9s9tcFOEP3Yrq2M83Gt+sQ@mail.gmail.com
 
Old 06-27-2011, 07:21 AM
kuLa
 
Default X on a virtual server

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 27/06/11 04:25, William Hopkins wrote:
> On 06/26/11 at 09:54pm, Eric d'Halibut wrote:
>> On 6/26/11, Gregory Seidman <gsslist+debian@anthropohedron.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> I am going to try x11vnc. Thank you all!
>>
>>> Not a bad choice, but not necessarily the best either. It depends on your
>>> purpose.
>>
>> My purpose, at this early stage, is simplicity itself: I have a
>> "virtual private server" up and running -- root access and all that --
>> and I want to have some sort of X desktop available on it that I can
>> remotely log in to. What do you suggest? At present I feel I am close
>> to getting the login to work, but of course there is nothing
>> resembling an X session there (i.le window manager, Gnome or KDE).
>
> x11vnc is for creating a VNC instance to an existing X server. You just want a
> VNC server: look into tightvncserver.
>

Not only, you can create totally new X session with it, check --create
option.
If you have not X running it will start one specially for you.

- --

|_|0|_| |
|_|_|0| "Heghlu'Meh QaQ jajVam" |
|0|0|0| -------- kuLa --------- |

gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 0xC100B4CA
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOCC92AAoJEOqHloDBALTKdqsIAIZ5OhlR4A IX6+4FWozhK1pD
LBB8IsbfgfLer13l+D+29a/TM2L1+UoWVbbL8lbOwM18wS+knLavvGxJ9nbr77De
MXQXxnrR6cpJzbp3gPk1bQ5aXuIRjamOod5HIUxcKtOL+ZwClC aPze4QVWq4G69m
chprDKCVz+aR1KEobZe9D8/fNmYGbujip6TLnbAyX1iPOpso7KWfWfgEyQwp2kSR
9q6yhwYeSyYv3zBYlbmsyubFV8YFmUKVvcPr1J9TgNh/XW4GaLDj57AqbNfOkFul
3qRPHLEqggKVN715Jz6nBM250YlQn+maKKTVtxSBHkjtROQKtm aNpq2RaziqRnM=
=d9We
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4E082F76.7020105@kulisz.net">http://lists.debian.org/4E082F76.7020105@kulisz.net
 
Old 06-27-2011, 04:18 PM
William Hopkins
 
Default X on a virtual server

On 06/27/11 at 01:49am, Eric d'Halibut wrote:
> On 6/26/11, William Hopkins <we.hopkins@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > x11vnc is for creating a VNC instance to an existing X server. You just want
> > a VNC server: look into tightvncserver.
>
> Yes, that is what I have running now, I think <g>
>
> >From 'ps ax':
>
> 27765 pts/1 S 0:00 Xtightvnc :01 -desktop X -auth /home/bob/.Xauthority
> 27772 pts/1 Sl 0:00 gnome-session
> 27775 pts/1 S 0:00 /usr/lib/libgconf2-4/gconfd-2 5
> 27777 pts/1 S 0:00 /usr/bin/gnome-keyring-daemon
>
> I cannot, however, connect from my remote machine. Even if I turn off
> the firewalls at both ends of the link, I get a "connection refused"
> when I run vncviewer. I can't even nping to port 5901, which is what
> is configured. I have run xhost + to add both client and server to
> access list.
>
> Some unix weirdness somewhere....
>

I *think* you want Xtightvnc :1, not :01?
Anyway, what does `netstat -nlp |grep vnc` output? Do you see any errors from
running VNC?

--
Liam
 
Old 06-27-2011, 04:20 PM
William Hopkins
 
Default X on a virtual server

On 06/27/11 at 12:47am, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:41 PM, William Hopkins <we.hopkins@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 06/26/11 at 11:29pm, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:25 PM, William Hopkins <we.hopkins@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On 06/26/11 at 09:54pm, Eric d'Halibut wrote:
> >> >> On 6/26/11, Gregory Seidman <gsslist+debian@anthropohedron.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> I am going to try x11vnc. Thank you all!
> >> >>
> >> >> > Not a bad choice, but not necessarily the best either. It depends on your
> >> >> > purpose.
> >> >>
> >> >> My purpose, at this early stage, is simplicity itself: I have a
> >> >> "virtual private server" up and running -- root access and all that --
> >> >> and I want to have some sort of X desktop available on it that I can
> >> >> remotely log in to. What do you suggest? At present I feel I am close
> >> >> to getting the login to work, but of course there is nothing
> >> >> resembling an X session there (i.le window manager, Gnome or KDE).
> >> >
> >> > x11vnc is for creating a VNC instance to an existing X server. You just want a
> >> > VNC server: look into tightvncserver.
> >>
> >> Or NX from www.nomachine.com, which is free for personal use and is
> >> commercial grade software with excellent printing, USB, and shared
> >> session capability with quite efficient CPU and network use on both
> >> ends. It's a big step up from VNC.
> >
> > Your post is not helpful in reply to what I have said. You basically say 'don't
> > listen to this guy -- come try this instead!'. I don't appreciate it.
> > Furthermore NX has gone closed-source and is not easier to configure or
> > understand. VNC is simple and is what Eric previously told us he was using.
> > It's right there in the quoted text.
>
> This is confusing. I was trying to help the original poster, Gregory,
> by pointing out what is, compared side-by-side, an excellent solution.
> I wasn't trying to insult you, and I certainly did not ignore your
> suggestions, but rather I tried to help him, as the original poster. I
> am sorry if that bothers you, although in a support list, I'm not sure
> how to offer a relevant suggestion without possibly insulting someone
> so sensitive about alternative approaches.

I'll accept that you didn't mean any offense. But it just seemed rude to me at
the time, when we are troubleshooting VNC and you offer 'dont use VNC' as a
suggestion. It also sounded very like an advertisement.

--
Liam
 
Old 06-28-2011, 04:56 AM
"Eric d'Halibut"
 
Default X on a virtual server

SOLVED!

On 6/27/11, William Hopkins <we.hopkins@gmail.com> wrote:

> Anyway, what does `netstat -nlp |grep vnc` output?

This was just the debugging tip I needed! I've lost the output, but it
contained an entry '127.0.0.1:5901' which brought to mind the strange
(to me) presence of the argument '-localhost' in the server startup
script I was using/"borrowing" from someone on the 'net:

vncserver :01 -rfbport 5901 -geometry 1280x1024 -nevershared
-localhost -depth 16

I knew my desktop was on port 5901; the server log told me that. At
any rate -- you can see this coming, right? <g> -- removing that
goshdarn 'localhost' cured my "connection refused" problem!

Thanks William, and pardon me now while I get back to the "expert" who
gave me that script!


--
No no no, my fish's name is Eric, Eric the fish. He's an halibut. I am
not a looney! Why should I be tarred with the epithet looney merely
because I have a pet halibut?


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: BANLkTikenvmNMwjrv5c6KJbbUdy=Y2XzPA@mail.gmail.com ">http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTikenvmNMwjrv5c6KJbbUdy=Y2XzPA@mail.gmail.com
 
Old 06-28-2011, 10:01 AM
Andrei POPESCU
 
Default X on a virtual server

On Du, 26 iun 11, 03:11:51, Eric d'Halibut wrote:
> I'm thinking that in order to set up a remote X login to a given
> machine, that X must be running and configured on that machine. But X
> doesn't want to configure itself on a "virtual private server" that
> has NO PHYSICAL VIDEO CARD, or so it seems to me at present.
>
> But surely all the computing horsepower I have available to me in my
> virtual private server (to which I have of course root access) can be
> put in the service of providing X access to that server. Am I crazy,
> or how do I set up X for remote login on a machine with no video card,
> or even no physical existence?

Hello Eric,

X seems to be reversing the meaning of 'server' and 'client', which has
created a lot of confusion for many. To be able to understand it you
must remember that the X server part runs on the machine with the video
card + display + input devices and the X client can be on the same
machine or on a remote one.

To avoid confusion I will use 'remote' and 'local' machine whenever
necessary. For your use case here are a few options with pros(+) and
cons(-)

1. Make use of the fact that the X protocol is sever-client

1a. "pure" X (with or without XDMCP)
+ remote machine needs only a few X libraries and "client" programs
- insecure
- not really usable over slow connections (less than 100 Mbit/s?)

1b. SSH X forwarding
+ X client machine needs only a few libraries and client programs plus
SSH server (of course)
+ secure (tunneled via ssh)
+ very easy to setup ('ssh -X remote_machine' on a default Debian
install)
- even slower than pure X (additional encryption overhead), but might be
sufficient for occasional use, even over internet

2. VNC: basically VNC transmits the pixels on a display over the wire
and input back to the machine running X. It comes in two flavours:

2a. x11vnc: most useful to connect to an already running X session (ex.
for remote assistance), but can be used to start a new X session
+ simple to use
+ IME more usable over slow internet connections
- insecure (unless tunneled through SSH)

2b. VNC server: not sure how much of X this requires on the remote
machine and can't tell you much about it (no experience), but might be a
good option given enough compression+encryption.

3. NX: as far as I understand this enhances the pure X protocol to make
it usable over the internet (both speed and security). Unfortunately
it's non-free.

Hope this helps,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
 
Old 06-28-2011, 10:12 AM
"John A. Sullivan III"
 
Default X on a virtual server

On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 13:01 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Du, 26 iun 11, 03:11:51, Eric d'Halibut wrote:
> > I'm thinking that in order to set up a remote X login to a given
> > machine, that X must be running and configured on that machine. But X
> > doesn't want to configure itself on a "virtual private server" that
> > has NO PHYSICAL VIDEO CARD, or so it seems to me at present.
> >
> > But surely all the computing horsepower I have available to me in my
> > virtual private server (to which I have of course root access) can be
> > put in the service of providing X access to that server. Am I crazy,
> > or how do I set up X for remote login on a machine with no video card,
> > or even no physical existence?
>
> Hello Eric,
>
> X seems to be reversing the meaning of 'server' and 'client', which has
> created a lot of confusion for many. To be able to understand it you
> must remember that the X server part runs on the machine with the video
> card + display + input devices and the X client can be on the same
> machine or on a remote one.
>
> To avoid confusion I will use 'remote' and 'local' machine whenever
> necessary. For your use case here are a few options with pros(+) and
> cons(-)
>
> 1. Make use of the fact that the X protocol is sever-client
>
> 1a. "pure" X (with or without XDMCP)
> + remote machine needs only a few X libraries and "client" programs
> - insecure
> - not really usable over slow connections (less than 100 Mbit/s?)
>
> 1b. SSH X forwarding
> + X client machine needs only a few libraries and client programs plus
> SSH server (of course)
> + secure (tunneled via ssh)
> + very easy to setup ('ssh -X remote_machine' on a default Debian
> install)
> - even slower than pure X (additional encryption overhead), but might be
> sufficient for occasional use, even over internet
>
> 2. VNC: basically VNC transmits the pixels on a display over the wire
> and input back to the machine running X. It comes in two flavours:
>
> 2a. x11vnc: most useful to connect to an already running X session (ex.
> for remote assistance), but can be used to start a new X session
> + simple to use
> + IME more usable over slow internet connections
> - insecure (unless tunneled through SSH)
>
> 2b. VNC server: not sure how much of X this requires on the remote
> machine and can't tell you much about it (no experience), but might be a
> good option given enough compression+encryption.
>
> 3. NX: as far as I understand this enhances the pure X protocol to make
> it usable over the internet (both speed and security). Unfortunately
> it's non-free.
>
> Hope this helps,
> Andrei
For a free, open source, and maintained implementation of NX see
www.x2go.org


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 1309255961.19248.8.camel@denise.theartistscloset.c om">http://lists.debian.org/1309255961.19248.8.camel@denise.theartistscloset.c om
 
Old 06-28-2011, 11:37 AM
Camaleón
 
Default X on a virtual server

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:01:23 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

(...)

> 3. NX: as far as I understand this enhances the pure X protocol to make
> it usable over the internet (both speed and security). Unfortunately
> it's non-free.

There some GPL implementations, like "FreeNX" and the most recent from
Google, "NeatX".

Greetings,

--
Camaleón


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: pan.2011.06.28.11.37.24@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.06.28.11.37.24@gmail.com
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:13 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org