On Thu, 31 May 2012 22:31:11 +0700
Khemara Lyn wrote:
> Thanks,
> It is far better than i thought. i would love to try the ssh tunnel and
> access by VNC to the display 0 also. Please forgive me for the poor
> suggestion. I thought i could help; in fact, i learn new thing from that :).
x11vnc
Thanks,
It is far better than i thought. i would love to try the ssh tunnel and
access by VNC to the display 0 also. Please forgive me for the poor
suggestion. I thought i could help; in fact, i learn new thing from that :).
Regards,
Khem
On 05/31/2012 04:25 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 31.0
On 05/31/2012 01:36 PM, Tommy Pham wrote:
> There's no problem really except that it's an additional manual step
> I'd like to avoid.
Oh, I *see*. I thought you couldn't connect. :-)
Andrew.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
http
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 05/29/2012 09:22 PM, Tommy Pham wrote:
>> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> On 05/29/2012 06:26 PM, Tommy Pham wrote:
Is it possible to have remote access via VNC without having the user
to be logged in (au
Am 31.05.2012 11:19, schrieb Khemara Lyn:
> Hello,
>
> Have you tried with "vino"? I prefer it than a separate VNC server with a
> separate display.
>
> With Vino, I can log in locally to my desktop at office; i would lock the
> screen when i leave my office and when i
> arrive home i would c
Hello,
Have you tried with "vino"? I prefer it than a separate VNC server with
a separate display.
With Vino, I can log in locally to my desktop at office; i would lock
the screen when i leave my office and when i arrive home i would connect
to the same desktop/display i left off at office w
On 05/29/2012 09:22 PM, Tommy Pham wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 05/29/2012 06:26 PM, Tommy Pham wrote:
>>> Is it possible to have remote access via VNC without having the user
>>> to be logged in (automatically, especially on a system reboot)?
>>
>> I don't g
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> the main question is where you missed my post about the package
> replying "I just installed that package prior to your response"
> but who cares, now it works :-)
>
>
Sorry, I meant I just installed the tigervnc package. It's been a
lo
Am 31.05.2012 00:10, schrieb Tommy Pham:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 30.05.2012 23:32, schrieb Tommy Pham:
Name : tigervnc-server-module
Architektur : x86_64
Version: 1.1.0
Ausgabe: 3.fc16
Größe : 606 k
Repo: i
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 30.05.2012 23:32, schrieb Tommy Pham:
>>> Name : tigervnc-server-module
>>> Architektur : x86_64
>>> Version : 1.1.0
>>> Ausgabe : 3.fc16
>>> Größe : 606 k
>>> Repo : installed
>>> Zusammenfassung : TigerVNC modu
Am 30.05.2012 23:32, schrieb Tommy Pham:
>> Name : tigervnc-server-module
>> Architektur : x86_64
>> Version: 1.1.0
>> Ausgabe: 3.fc16
>> Größe : 606 k
>> Repo: installed
>> Zusammenfassung : TigerVNC module to Xorg
>> URL: http://www.tigervnc.com
>> Lizenz :
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 30.05.2012 22:33, schrieb Tommy Pham:
>> I still can't seem to get this right :(. This is what I have.
>>
>> [root@ogx280 init.d]# rpm -qa|grep -i vnc
>> gtk-vnc2-0.5.0-2.fc17.i686
>> gtk-vnc-0.5.0-2.fc17.i686
>> gvnc-0.5.0-2.fc17.i68
Am 30.05.2012 22:33, schrieb Tommy Pham:
> I still can't seem to get this right :(. This is what I have.
>
> [root@ogx280 init.d]# rpm -qa|grep -i vnc
> gtk-vnc2-0.5.0-2.fc17.i686
> gtk-vnc-0.5.0-2.fc17.i686
> gvnc-0.5.0-2.fc17.i686
> tigervnc-license-1.1.0-5.fc17.noarch
> libvncserver-0.9.8.2-
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:
> On 05/29/2012 01:26 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:
>>
>> On 05/29/2012 12:00 PM, Tommy Pham wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Rick Stevens
>>> wrote:
On 05/29/2012 10:26 AM, Tommy Pham wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
On 05/29/2012 01:26 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:
On 05/29/2012 12:00 PM, Tommy Pham wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Rick Stevens
wrote:
On 05/29/2012 10:26 AM, Tommy Pham wrote:
Hi,
Is it possible to have remote access via VNC without having the user
to be logged in (automatically, espec
On 05/29/2012 12:00 PM, Tommy Pham wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Rick Stevens wrote:
On 05/29/2012 10:26 AM, Tommy Pham wrote:
Hi,
Is it possible to have remote access via VNC without having the user
to be logged in (automatically, especially on a system reboot)?
You could shar
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 05/29/2012 06:26 PM, Tommy Pham wrote:
>> Is it possible to have remote access via VNC without having the user
>> to be logged in (automatically, especially on a system reboot)?
>
> I don't get the problem. You don't have to be logged in o
On 05/29/2012 06:26 PM, Tommy Pham wrote:
> Is it possible to have remote access via VNC without having the user
> to be logged in (automatically, especially on a system reboot)?
I don't get the problem. You don't have to be logged in on
the console, or anything like that. You just have to be ab
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Rick Stevens wrote:
> On 05/29/2012 10:26 AM, Tommy Pham wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is it possible to have remote access via VNC without having the user
>> to be logged in (automatically, especially on a system reboot)?
>
>
> You could share the display in the X confi
On 05/29/2012 10:26 AM, Tommy Pham wrote:
Hi,
Is it possible to have remote access via VNC without having the user
to be logged in (automatically, especially on a system reboot)?
You could share the display in the X configs, e.g.:
cat /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/00-system-setup-vnc.conf
# This file
and his boss is "perfectly legitimate" to fire him form one day to the next
it does even not matter if there si any firewall to pierce, it is enough
taht a policy/admin says "it is not allowed" to fire you if you are doing it
peopole like you are a real nightmare because you are enforcing
other on
On Fri, 2011-10-14 at 23:28 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> All I know is this If I were Marko's employer and I read his
> views on circumventing or flouting the rules of a company I'd start to
> worry.
Yes. I've had to deal with sabotaging people before, and you are best
rid of them, before some
On Fri, 2011-10-14 at 23:05 +0100, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> Let me phrase in like this --- when some rules in some legal system
> seize to make actual sense, it is legitimate to challenge them.
There's a big difference between calling stupidity to attention, and
deliberately breaking the rules rat
On Fri, 2011-10-14 at 22:04 +0100, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> Rules are made to be broken... ;-)
Do people not understand what that quote means?
It's not that you're meant to break the rules. It's that people are
expected to get caught infringing them, and suffer punishment.
--
[tim@localhost ~]
On 10/14/2011 05:08 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> Oh, yes, you're absolutely right. Sorry for my English, it occasionally gets
> buggy... :-) I doubt that even a spell-checker could help me with that one.
That's what I kind of figured. BTW, I'm getting some bounces on your
email again.
--
users
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 11:05:49PM +0100, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> Yes, it appears to be a problem for some people in this thread.
And, if you'll pardon my mentioning it, you...
> Let me phrase in like this --- when some rules in some legal system seize to
> make actual sense, it is legitimate t
On 10/15/2011 02:21 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 10/14/2011 08:28 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> All I know is this If I were Marko's employer and I read his views
>> on circumventing or flouting the rules of a company I'd start to worry.
> I'd be looking for his replacement.
:-)
--
Even if you do le
On Friday 14 October 2011 23:18:17 Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 10/14/2011 03:05 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> > Let me phrase in like this --- when some rules in some legal system seize
> > to make actual sense, it is legitimate to challenge them.
>
> This made absolutely no sense at all until I suddenly
On 10/14/2011 04:17 PM, John Aldrich wrote:
> On Fri October 14 2011, Joe Zeff wrote:
> [snip]
>> And, I just figured out the correct response to anybody who thinks it's
>> legitimate to do something like this "because I think I need it" even
>> after being told that it's against company policy:
>>
Joe Zeff writes:
On 10/14/2011 11:50 AM, Bill Perry wrote:
> The computer security guys were somewhat arrogant, they basically said
> if you can figure out a way around our firewalls, go ahead, but we won't
> create a hole for you.
>
> A couple of days later I had the remote access going and I s
On Fri October 14 2011, Joe Zeff wrote:
[snip]
> And, I just figured out the correct response to anybody who thinks it's
> legitimate to do something like this "because I think I need it" even
> after being told that it's against company policy:
>
> "What *was* your username?"
>
>
Hehe...reminds
On 10/14/2011 03:05 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> Let me phrase in like this --- when some rules in some legal system seize to
> make actual sense, it is legitimate to challenge them.
This made absolutely no sense at all until I suddenly realized that the
word you meant was "cease."
--
users mail
On Friday 14 October 2011 14:02:25 Ian Malone wrote:
> On 14 October 2011 13:16, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> > If you just restrict people by rules, it *is* legitimate for them to
> > break the rules. If instead you teach people why they should uphold the
> > rules, it *is* *not* legitimate for them
On Friday 14 October 2011 16:28:17 Ed Greshko wrote:
> All I know is this If I were Marko's employer and I read his views
> on circumventing or flouting the rules of a company I'd start to worry.
Oh, I understand you completely! :-)
The opinion that I have comes from the experience of being
On 10/14/2011 11:50 AM, Bill Perry wrote:
> The computer security guys were somewhat arrogant, they basically said
> if you can figure out a way around our firewalls, go ahead, but we won't
> create a hole for you.
>
> A couple of days later I had the remote access going and I showed them
> how it
On 10/14/2011 08:28 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> All I know is this If I were Marko's employer and I read his views
> on circumventing or flouting the rules of a company I'd start to worry.
I'd be looking for his replacement.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or c
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 01:03:49AM +1030, Tim wrote:
> Quite how you come to that conclusion, I don't know. If you're refused
> permission, then that's the *opposite* from being legitimate to try to
> do so. Not only did you originally discover that it was blocked, you're
> being outright told th
On Friday, October 14, 2011 10:25:59 AM Rick Sewill wrote:
> On Friday, October 14, 2011 06:05:29 AM Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> > On Friday 14 October 2011 05:13:53 KC8LDO wrote:
> > > Is there a way to use ssh to get through a firewall for remote access
> > > to a system? The situation I'm looking a
On 10/14/2011 10:40 PM, Tim wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-10-14 at 13:16 +0100, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
>> If you just restrict people by rules, it *is* legitimate for them to
>> break the rules.
> Bullshit! You should look up what the word actually means. It's
> synonymous with:
> according to the ru
On Friday, October 14, 2011 06:05:29 AM Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> On Friday 14 October 2011 05:13:53 KC8LDO wrote:
> > Is there a way to use ssh to get through a firewall for remote access to
> > a system? The situation I'm looking at is a Fedora system sitting behind
> > a company firewall, which I
On Fri, 2011-10-14 at 13:16 +0100, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> If you just restrict people by rules, it *is* legitimate for them to
> break the rules.
Bullshit! You should look up what the word actually means. It's
synonymous with:
according to the rules and requirements,
authorised...
Th
On Fri, 2011-10-14 at 13:58 +0200, j.witvl...@mindef.nl wrote:
> So, if the OP asks his admin to allow him the access, and is refused,
> I think it is perfectly legitimate to DIY and pierce a connection
> through.
>
> Best, :-)
> Marko
Quite how you come to that conclusion, I don't know. If you
On 14 October 2011 13:16, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> On Friday 14 October 2011 12:33:25 Reindl Harald wrote:
>> peopole like you are a real nightmare because you are enforcing
>> other ones
>
> I am not enforcing anyone to do anything, just offering advice.
>
I think the word is encouraging.
>
> I
On Friday 14 October 2011 12:33:25 Reindl Harald wrote:
> peopole like you are a real nightmare because you are enforcing
> other ones
I am not enforcing anyone to do anything, just offering advice.
> to break policies which you and we do not understand
> from outside and there is only one person
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 13:02:43 +0100
Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> Have you ever crossed the street when the red light was on for pedestrians,
> in
> a situation when there were no vehicles in the street? Was that legitimate?
> Was it legal? Was the rule enforceable? Was breaking the rule possible? On
On 14 October 2011 12:26, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> However, every serious firewall admin should know that the firewall is a
> one-way
> barrier, protecting local users from the outside attack, and having in
> principle no way to protect the outside world from the local user. Or in the
> words of
On Friday 14 October 2011 12:42:03 Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 10/14/2011 07:26 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> >
> > A firewall cannot protect a network against its own internal users, and
> > should not even try to.
> >
> >
> > So, if the OP asks his admin to allow him the access, and is refused, I
>
-Original Message-
From: users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[mailto:users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of Marko Vojinovic
Sent: vrijdag 14 oktober 2011 13:26
To: Community support for Fedora users
Subject: Re: Remote access
On Friday 14 October 2011 05:32:23 Scott
On 10/14/2011 07:26 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
>
> A firewall cannot protect a network against its own internal users, and should
> not even try to.
>
>
> So, if the OP asks his admin to allow him the access, and is refused, I think
> it is perfectly legitimate to DIY and pierce a connection thro
On Friday 14 October 2011 05:13:53 KC8LDO wrote:
> Is there a way to use ssh to get through a firewall for remote access to a
> system?
I have a little shell script I run on my desktop at work that has
it's own copy of ssh-agent holding my home system public key info.
It runs an ssh command from m
On Friday 14 October 2011 05:32:23 Scott Rouse wrote:
> On Oct 14, 2011 12:13 AM, "KC8LDO" wrote:
> > Is there a way to use ssh to get through a firewall for remote access to
> > a system? The situation I'm looking at is a Fedora system sitting behind
> > a company firewall, which I have no contro
On Friday 14 October 2011 05:13:53 KC8LDO wrote:
> Is there a way to use ssh to get through a firewall for remote access to a
> system? The situation I'm looking at is a Fedora system sitting behind a
> company firewall, which I have no control over, that I wish to gain access
> to by logging into
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 6:13 AM, KC8LDO wrote:
> Is there a way to use ssh to get through a firewall for remote access to a
> system? The situation I'm looking at is a Fedora system sitting behind a
> company firewall, which I have no control over, that I wish to gain access
> to by logging into i
On Oct 14, 2011 12:13 AM, "KC8LDO" wrote:
>
> Is there a way to use ssh to get through a firewall for remote access to a
> system? The situation I'm looking at is a Fedora system sitting behind a
> company firewall, which I have no control over, that I wish to gain access
> to by logging into it o
54 matches
Mail list logo
