>>> Yep. You still need a computer for each user, tho.
>>
>> Sure. But I mean, you can set up an application server that more than one
>> person can access, without doing anything particularly special.
>
> You can do exactly the same thing on Windows that you do on Unix.
>
> Log into the windows box remotely. Start an X client and point it at
> your display. Disconnect without logging out. Someone else logs into the
> windows box remotely. They start an X client and points it at their
> display. They disconnect without logging out. Guess what? Windows
> running X clients talking to two different X servers.

Does anyone, anywhere on Earth, actually run X on Windows?

I mean, I gather that you *can*. But does anybody actually *do* this?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 14/09/2011 5:58 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 9/14/2011 8:09, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> You paid for your OS, you also have to pay for your applications.
>> Only loonies provides free stuff of excellent quality on that platform.
>
> I think you just insulted every member of TAG. ;-)

Or complemented them.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 14-9-2011 22:52, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> Yep. You still need a computer for each user, tho.
>>>
>>> Sure. But I mean, you can set up an application server that more than
>>> one
>>> person can access, without doing anything particularly special.
>>
>> You can do exactly the same thing on Windows that you do on Unix.
>>
>> Log into the windows box remotely. Start an X client and point it at
>> your display. Disconnect without logging out. Someone else logs into the
>> windows box remotely. They start an X client and points it at their
>> display. They disconnect without logging out. Guess what? Windows
>> running X clients talking to two different X servers.
>
> Does anyone, anywhere on Earth, actually run X on Windows?
>
> I mean, I gather that you *can*. But does anybody actually *do* this?
>

I have done that, why?

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 21:52:10 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>>> Yep. You still need a computer for each user, tho.
>>>
>>> Sure. But I mean, you can set up an application server that more than
>>> one person can access, without doing anything particularly special.
>>
>> You can do exactly the same thing on Windows that you do on Unix.
>>
>> Log into the windows box remotely. Start an X client and point it at
>> your display. Disconnect without logging out. Someone else logs into
>> the windows box remotely. They start an X client and points it at their
>> display. They disconnect without logging out. Guess what? Windows
>> running X clients talking to two different X servers.
> 
> Does anyone, anywhere on Earth, actually run X on Windows?
> 
> I mean, I gather that you *can*. But does anybody actually *do* this?

Yes.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Am 14.09.2011 22:52, schrieb Orchid XP v8:

> Does anyone, anywhere on Earth, actually run X on Windows?
>
> I mean, I gather that you *can*. But does anybody actually *do* this?

An X /server/ (that is, the X terminal software)? Absolutely. Guess how 
I "remotely" control my Linux machine (which I use primarily for 
scripted test-runs of POV-Ray) from my Windows machine (which I use for 
everyday stuff, including POV-Ray development with MS Visual Studio).

Sure, I could just plug in a keyboard and mouse, and use the analog 
input of one of my displays to switch between the two; but having two 
keyboards and two mice on the desk really sucks, KVM switches aren't 
free (as in free beer), and being able to use the Windows task bar to 
switch to the Linux desktop is quite handy as well.


An X /client/ on Windows (that is, software running on a Windows host 
and displaying on an X terminal)? Doesn't sound like a common use case 
to me.

Post a reply to this message

>>>> In seriousness, manpages are, by definition, *reference*
>>>> documentation. What the standard Unix system lacks entirely is any
>>>> kind of *explanation*.
>>>
>>> Depends on the manpage.
>>
>> No, pretty much all of them list the command options, and that's it.
>
> So I'm lying, then, is that it?

OK, let me put it this way: I've never seen any manpage which is 
anything more than a terse summary of command switches with an 
incomplete description of what they do. The most in-depth manpage I've 
seen is for Bash, which is still only a reference document, not an 
introductory tutorial.

It seems to be that the /purpose/ of a manpage is to be a reference 
document. Which is what you want when you're trying to remember the name 
of the command switch that turns on the feature you want. But it's 
useless when you're trying to figure out how to use a tool you've never 
used before...

Then again, sometimes the manpage just says "use info". And then you had 
/another/ problem...

>>>        PasswordAuthentication
>>>                Specifies whether password authentication is allowed.
>>>                The default is “yes”.
>>>
>>> Seems pretty straightforward to me.
>>
>> Does that disable CHAP as well? Or only plain password authentication?
>> (If I'm remembering this right, CHAP is basically password
>> authentication, but with a slightly more secure wire protocol.)
>
> It doesn't say anything about CHAP.  I'm pretty sure it also doesn't
> change the password encryption method from AES to Triple-DES as well.
> It's not likely to document everything it *doesn't* do, just what it
> *does* do.

So even with this line, people can *still* authenticate by password.

Hence my original statement that it's difficult to turn off all the ways 
that users can get in with a password.

>> I thought the host key is how the server identifies itself to you, not
>> how you identify yourself to the server?
>
> Host keys aren't very commonly used AFAIK.

All three of the SFTP systems we use commercially have them.

>> At any rate, it's news to me that you can create a ~/.ssh folder and
>> sshd will actually take note of this. I don't recall the manpage
>> mentioning this at all.
>
> It's always been that way.  The cited bit above is from the man page and
> says pretty explicitly that the user's keys are in ~/.ssh

OK. So now I'm wondering how come I never saw this information anywhere...

Post a reply to this message

On 14/09/2011 05:54 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 9/14/2011 1:31, Invisible wrote:
>> On 13/09/2011 10:01 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> On 9/13/2011 11:45, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> So what changed then? Certainly X hasn't changed since prehistoric
>>>> times...
>>>
>>> ssh port forwarding, for one. It was never hard to forward X. It was
>>> hard to forward X securely and hard to forward X without first logging
>>> in over a command line interface.
>>
>> You mean SSH hasn't existed since before System V as well?
>
> *Relatively* speaking, ssh is much newer than rsh. It's also relatively
> new that it will do port forwarding and stuff like that. Remember that
> ssh was standardized in 1995 or so, and X has been around far longer
> than that.

1995? Jesus, that's WITHIN MY OWN LIFETIME! Compared to Unix, which 
almost pre-dates binary computers, that's ultra-modernist!

Post a reply to this message

>> When I looked, I couldn't find any precompiled Windows binaries for
>> OpenSSH anywhere.
>
> They are available now.  Cygwin has also been around for a while, and
> includes an sshd server (in fact, a couple of the versions I found for
> Windows were essentially stripped down installations of cygwin).

Wouldn't that mean that once you connect in, your shell can only execute 
Cygwin binaries?

(Not that this matters if you're only trying to forward ports...)

Quite why you need a complete Unix emulator to run something that only 
sends and receives data over network ports I don't know, but anyway...

Post a reply to this message

> An X /server/ (that is, the X terminal software)? Absolutely.

Mmm, OK.

> Sure, I could just plug in a keyboard and mouse, and use the analog
> input of one of my displays to switch between the two; but having two
> keyboards and two mice on the desk really sucks, KVM switches aren't
> free (as in free beer), and being able to use the Windows task bar to
> switch to the Linux desktop is quite handy as well.

Or you could just use VNC, which works on both platforms...

> An X /client/ on Windows (that is, software running on a Windows host
> and displaying on an X terminal)? Doesn't sound like a common use case
> to me.

OK, fair enough.

Post a reply to this message

Le 15/09/2011 10:26, Invisible a écrit :
>> An X /server/ (that is, the X terminal software)? Absolutely.
> 
> Mmm, OK.
> 
>> Sure, I could just plug in a keyboard and mouse, and use the analog
>> input of one of my displays to switch between the two; but having two
>> keyboards and two mice on the desk really sucks, KVM switches aren't
>> free (as in free beer), and being able to use the Windows task bar to
>> switch to the Linux desktop is quite handy as well.
> 
> Or you could just use VNC, which works on both platforms...

try playing xonix via VNC... it's far easier with just a X server on the
windows system.

It's just a shame that windows applications are unable to be translated
into X clients by MS. (well, they still have that "one user at a time"
approach in a lot of their code too)

> 
>> An X /client/ on Windows (that is, software running on a Windows host
>> and displaying on an X terminal)? Doesn't sound like a common use case
>> to me.
> 
> OK, fair enough.

Post a reply to this message