On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 04:23:12AM -0500, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Jim Christiansen wrote:
>
> >Ok, so what I'm understanding is that a linux host system
> >without X installed can be accessed from another computer,
> >remotely, using ssh and its X system to operate an X session
Havoc Pennington wrote:
On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 09:19:08AM -0700, Jim Christiansen wrote:
Ok, so what I'm understanding is that a linux host system without X
installed can be accessed from another computer, remotely, using ssh and its
X system to operate an X session from the host?
You
On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Jim Christiansen wrote:
>Ok, so what I'm understanding is that a linux host system
>without X installed can be accessed from another computer,
>remotely, using ssh and its X system to operate an X session
>from the host?
>From the very beginning of X back in the early 1980s, X
On 11:26 07 Dec 2002, Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 09:19:08AM -0700, Jim Christiansen wrote:
| > Ok, so what I'm understanding is that a linux host system without X
| > installed can be accessed from another computer, remotely, using ssh and its
| > X syst
On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 09:19:08AM -0700, Jim Christiansen wrote:
>
> Ok, so what I'm understanding is that a linux host system without X
> installed can be accessed from another computer, remotely, using ssh and its
> X system to operate an X session from the host?
>
You need the X applicatio
Hi,
Ok, so what I'm understanding is that a linux host system without X
installed can be accessed from another computer, remotely, using ssh and its
X system to operate an X session from the host?
Thanks,
Jim
_
The new MSN 8:
On 5 Dec 2002, Joe Klemmer wrote:
>> X11 is a network protocol. You do not EVER need to install an X
>> server on any server machine *ever*. You can run our X based
>> configuration utilities just fine from an ssh shell with display
>> to a remote X server.
>
> You don't _need_ to insta
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 17:21, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> X11 is a network protocol. You do not EVER need to install an X
> server on any server machine *ever*. You can run our X based
> configuration utilities just fine from an ssh shell with display
> to a remote X server.
You don't _ne
On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Alan Peery wrote:
>Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 13:47:46 +
>From: Alan Peery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>List-Id: Discussion of Red Hat Linux 8.0 (Psyche)
>Subject: Re: Runni
yntax/help screen (ok a
>bit harsh, but you get the point).
>
>So, what about you guys, where do you stand? Do think running X on servers
>is the way to go?
>
>Informed opinions only, please cat flames/rants > /dev/null :-)
X11 is a network protocol. You do not EVER nee
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 3 Dec 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Your comment seems to come from a 'political' point of view, you must
> know the command line options to run Linux, this is not true. If you
> have nothing else to do with your time, by all means learn and
>Your comment seems to come from a 'political' point of view,
you must know the command line options to run Linux, this is not true. If you have
nothing else to do with your time, by all means learn and run only in the command line
mode. Just
because you installed 'startx' on your machine it d
M. Yu wrote:
To me, running
X on a server is not only illogical but a waste of precious resources and
introducing a potential security risk.
I think there is a huge difference between running an X server and
having libraries availlable for running X programs. I think the X
libraries belong o
On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Dusan Djordjevic wrote:
> Yes and no, IMHO. Experienced sysadmin will do administration usual way.
> Home users/desktop users/unexperienced persons/win admins/whoever will
> use graphical admin tools. I think having that kind of choice is great.
> --
> Eng. Dusan Djordjevic (
natarios: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC:
Asunto: Running X on servers
Hello list,
I was recently installing RedHat 8.0 in my office PC and noticed that it
now
comes with a package group labeled "Server Configuration Tools". Clicking
on Details show that the set contain RPMs that
y be out of a job when they can
fix a problem in a critical system.
>
> So, what about you guys, where do you stand? Do think running X on servers
> is the way to go?
Again, X clients on servers is fine. X servers are better left for
workstations.
Cheers,
--
Javier Gostling
Ingeniero de Si
> So, what about you guys, where do you stand? Do think running X on
> servers is the way to go?
Yes and no, IMHO. Experienced sysadmin will do administration usual way.
Home users/desktop users/unexperienced persons/win admins/whoever will
use graphical admin tools. I think having tha
x27;t load, they're stuck there staring at the
screen feverishly typing in MS-DOS commands like HELP and wondering why
typing a command followed by "/?" doesn't show a syntax/help screen (ok a
bit harsh, but you get the point).
So, what about you guys, where do you stand? D
18 matches
Mail list logo
