From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 26 12:53:19 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFE0516A41C for ; Sun, 26 Jun 2005 12:53:19 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from duckeo@gmail.com) Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.200]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CD8F43D49 for ; Sun, 26 Jun 2005 12:53:19 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from duckeo@gmail.com) Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i3so195993wra for ; Sun, 26 Jun 2005 05:53:19 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=NhpYYDDojKItC9BNLr13cr98oRNBCv/4B2ReP7BP2BKGKHwOGkgP4w28rwluRHk9X3k/vVRNke0i+Lomf3jH651Dx9AOMcQGM1xsHTGDtWYnie0Bok8O2m+XWbou3XFKi9u63FhGkQRJGLs6HWFe93yBZJMjzrmUuaQMRbHrdX8= Received: by 10.54.129.19 with SMTP id b19mr2821319wrd; Sun, 26 Jun 2005 05:53:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.34.66 with HTTP; Sun, 26 Jun 2005 05:53:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <894159540506260553650b78c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:53:19 +1000 From: duckeo To: Garrett Cooper In-Reply-To: <42BEA24B.7060109@u.washington.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <89415954050626001752c3c470@mail.gmail.com> <42BE9CDB.5040502@u.washington.edu> <89415954050626052730dc30d4@mail.gmail.com> <894159540506260530596e4be9@mail.gmail.com> <42BEA24B.7060109@u.washington.edu> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Xvnc + inetd X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: duckeo List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 12:53:19 -0000 On 6/26/05, Garrett Cooper wrote: > duckeo wrote: >=20 > >On 6/26/05, duckeo wrote: > > > > > >>Because isn't VNC far more efficient? I've read X is only really > >>useful locally, also because VNC is more common a client on Windows > >>machines (as in already installed). > >> > >> > I'm not sure if that's true or not. I've talked to various people > who've advocated both angles, but it appears that X forwarding is > (arguably) more secure. I don't know if this is the case or not, and I > also don't know if they were referring to not SSH port forwarded > connections as opposed to a non-localhost-only based server. > But I do know that running multiple separate X sessions as opposed > to X port forwarding is overall less efficient if you're dealing with a > large number of users accessing one host. This is true because VNC-in > various forms-has a tendency to eat up some userspace memory (I think > around 5-8Mb per instance), in addition to the actual X session > allocated memory that it's associated with. That's just a thought to > consider when comparing the two. > -Garrett I'll take that into consideration as the usercount starts to increase on the box, at the moment it will be mostly network oriented IT staff needing access to utilities. The main concern is access to X from Windows machines, and VNC still seems to be the easiest method (we also have things like activeX capabale VNC clients we like to use for remote access).