 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/12/2011 1:41, Invisible wrote:
> After reading several dozen forum posts, it seems nobody has a really good
> solution for doing this.
Actually, when you think about it, the two people in this situation are not
unlikely using two computers both of which are using the same IP address,
like 192.168.0.2. Hard to see how to make a TCP/IP transfer easy if both
target machines have the same IP address, regardless of software installed
or operating system in use.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/15/2011 18:19, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Heathen! Linux machines do not need to be rebooted. Ever.
I'm pretty sure you're wrong on that one.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/15/2011 1:07, clipka wrote:
> 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.
Yep. On the other hand, I was merely trying to point out that it wasn't the
fact that Windows was present that was causing the problem. Even non-server
versions of Windows (Pro, not Home, generally) let you have multiple people
logged in using it as a server.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/15/2011 2:44, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> try playing xonix via VNC... it's far easier with just a X server on the
> windows system.
VNC wasn't really designed for efficiency.
> It's just a shame that windows applications are unable to be translated
> into X clients by MS.
X is a rather sucky protocol, in modern times, for doing this sort of stuff.
Lots of code breaks, for example, on a high-latency link, because so many
programs assume that things like change of focus will complete before
keypress events start arriving, but they don't. There's whole piles of
kludges to account for that kind of thing.
> (well, they still have that "one user at a time"
> approach in a lot of their code too)
No they don't. That's enforced entirely by the login program checking licenses.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/15/2011 11:17, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> If the two machines are on the same LAN, this probably isn't a problem.
Only if it's difficult to transfer data between the outside world and the
systems you're connecting, a la the original topic of the thread.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 19:17:36 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> As far as I know, getting X to actually work remotely is extremely
>>> difficult, whereas I know from experience that getting VNC to work
>>> remotely is trivial.
>>
>> VNC is also trivially compromised unless you tunnel it over ssh or wrap
>> it in ssl.
>
> If the two machines are on the same LAN, this probably isn't a problem.
> (And presumably the same applies to X as well anyway...)
Yes, that's true, if you trust the LAN.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 19:46:42 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Man pages are not intended to be tutorials. They're manual pages.
>
> ...which is the point I'm trying to make, yes.
So then what's the problem? You're complaining that they're not
tutorials, but they're not intended to be tutorials.
>>> Then again, sometimes the manpage just says "use info". And then you
>>> had /another/ problem...
>>
>> Well, no, it's not *another* problem - you just need to use the info
>> command instead.
>
> Have /you/ tried navigating the thing?
>
> Since I'm guessing the answer is probably "yes", then I don't need to
> explain to you how hard it is...
Yes, and I usually end up googling instead. I'm sure I could figure it
out, but I don't need it that often.
>>> So even with this line, people can *still* authenticate by password.
>>
>> Not to the best of my knowledge.
>
> I'm fairly sure I tested it, and discovered that I needed to turn off
> multiple things to stop it accepting my password as a valid login. But
> since that was then and this is now, I guess I might be incorrect.
It might be easier now, yes. Honestly, I've never even looked for a CHAP-
based authentication mechanism for ssh.
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> A sample size of 3 isn't exactly data supporting "commonly used".
>
> It's infinity times larger than a sample size of zero. ;-)
Sure, but not mathematically significant.
> Then again, one of these systems is set up to use PK authentication, and
> the server administrators emailled /us/ with the private key to use to
> get access. *facepalm*
>
> Imagine it: Going to all the trouble of setting up a secure system, and
> not even knowing how to secure it properly...
I don't have to - I see it fairly regularly.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 19:10:09 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> On 9/15/2011 18:19, Francois Labreque wrote:
>> Heathen! Linux machines do not need to be rebooted. Ever.
>
> I'm pretty sure you're wrong on that one.
Yeah, kernel updates require a reboot. Other than that, you usually
don't have to (unless you're killing zombie processes), but sometimes
"it's easier".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/15/2011 19:36, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yeah, kernel updates require a reboot. Other than that, you usually
> don't have to
Again, it depends on what you're doing and where the Linux is living. I'll
grant that *desktop* linux systems rarely *need* rebooting. And I'd argue
that if you have a server whose *only* job is being a web server, then
restarting the web server after an upgrade is essentially the same as a
reboot, except faster.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Did you at least refresh (aka reload) sshd when updating the
>>> configuration ?
>>
>> Is rebooting the machine sufficient to do that?
>>
>> If so, yes...
>>
>
> Heathen! Linux machines do not need to be rebooted. Ever.
It's not so much that I purposely rebooted it; more that it's a laptop
that shuts down whenever the power is unplugged. So every time I moved
it to a different location in the building, it was effectively rebooted.
> To quote Yoda: Unlearn everything you must.
If you're going to quote Yoda, do it right:
"Then you must /unlearn/ all that you have /learned/."
Not every sentence he utters is in object-subject-verb order. (At least,
not in the original trilogy.)
If you really want to split hairs,
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002173.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
