I'm trying to ease the pain of using Linux. If I choose the tunnel-over-SSH with X-forwarding option, the first Windows they'll see will be an empty terminal window instead of looking at a full-blow-Windows-like UI. I really don't want to scare them off. Gilboa On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 09:48 -0500, Scot L. Harris wrote: > On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 09:16, Gilboa Davara wrote: > > Hello list, > > > > I need help. > > I'm trying to help my Windows-using-coworkers access my Linux (FC, CENT, > > RHEL) farm from their Windows (yuck!) desktops and I'm a bit stuck. > > > > My initial thought was VNC. I've created a couple of VNC accounts on > > each server and configured each of accounts to run KDE. > > Amazingly enough, the solution seem to be working just fine (considering > > the number of active KDE sessions) but soon enough, I started getting > > Windows client disconnect errors which do not seem to relate to server > > load and/or network load. I tried alternating the Windows client (from > > RealVNC to UltraVNC) the problem remained. Plus, VNC still has that > > annoying lag, even on switched GbE network. > > I tried cygwin/X based solution. But cygwin/X is getting severe tearing > > and update problems (both under SSH/tunneling and xdmcp session) which > > renders it too unstable in my eyes. > > Next came X-Deep32 which works ~OK when combined with SSH tunneling but > > I can't seem to get it to create an xdmcp session. > > > > I can go with the Uber-solution (get Exceed for each workstation) but I > > rather not scare my boss with >500$ per workstation licensing fee. At > > least not now. > > > > Any ideas? > > Gilboa > > Do you need to provide an entire desktop? Why not use X11 forwarding to > just display the windows of the programs they need to access? I used to > do this on my laptop before I converted it to 100% linux. You can use > cygwin/X to do this. > > Assuming also that this is over a LAN and that you are not trying to > support this over WAN type links. I run X11 forwarding over a WAN link > when I travel. It is a little slower but acceptable for things like > evolution. You should check the options for using compression, that can > help sometimes with the perceived throughput and response time. >
