On 11-Jun-2003/18:48 -0400, Ben Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >T. Ribbrock wrote: >>Well, it all depends on what you're doing with your machine(s). In my >>eyes, Windows is way behind X. Why? Because I care less about speed, >>but quite a lot about the fact that you can use remote displays with >>almost no effort at all - and that I've been able to so for years. >>That's somethng MS still doesn't offer an easy, out-of-the-box >>solution for. Same goes for virtual desktops - a concept, I sorely >>niss on the Win00 box I have to use at work. It's just not all >>balck-and-white... :-} > >Windows XP Pro also has "Remote Desktop", built in ready to go right out >of the box.
That only works with another XP machine. X allows connections from any machine that runs X, including Winboxes (see Cygwin/XFree86, eXceed, etc). And as Thomas noted, X has had this capability for years. >It makes X-windows look like crap in comparison. It is FAST, even over >high latency , low bandwidth connections. It has exported sound and the >connecting client can share his disks (if he wants to ) with the server. >The only downside I have seen is that it is not true multi-user, it only >allows one desktop user to be active at a time (whether remote OR local). The main reason I use remote X is to allow more than one person to use the computer's resources at one time. For remote admin, I use SSH. I could setup remote sound with GNOME/GDM, but I haven't wanted it enough to bother. Tony -- Anthony E. Greene <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP Key: 0x6C94239D/7B3D BD7D 7D91 1B44 BA26 C484 A42A 60DD 6C94 239D AOL/Yahoo Chat: TonyG05 HomePage: <http://www.pobox.com/~agreene/> Linux: the choice of a GNU Generation. <http://www.linux.org/> -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
