On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 21:28 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 16:56, Gilboa Davara wrote: > > As far as I know my company uses the Symantec A.V. > > If there's a problem with the A.V, I'm in deep sh*t. > > Bill-Gates' will be driver before our Windows admins will even think > > about going A.V. free on our development machines. > > Maybe you can get them to turn off the realtime network scan long > enough to be sure that is the problem. /me smack myself on the head for not testing it yet. Testing it now. > > > In short, unless I can: A. Find what's bothering VNC, B. Get FreeNX > > working on x86-64 machines. Hummingbird (Exceed) is about to get a nice > > paycheck :/ > > I don't see how one brand or another X server is going to make > any difference. The network traffic will be the same unless > they have some way to cheat and disable the scan. Forcing > compression on freenx would help at the expense of load on > the server. Here's the deal, the problem is *not* network traffic. The server are connected to GbE switched network, and the network utilization is fairly low. > > > Going a bit OT: Beside Exceed, any other good-and-stable (!!!) Windows > > X-servers? (Preferably cheaper...?) > > Dual-boot into Linux? Run Linux native and terminal services > for windows apps? Linux native with vmware player for > windows in a virtual machines? All of these would let you > use your CPU for more than scanning the network for viruses. > I doubt that the power's to be will be willing to try such a radical solution. At least for now, Windows is our (or actually their's) main development environment. Gilboa
