Slashdot Mirror

screen is possibly the most underrated GNU tool ever. I could never do without it, but I'm amazed by how many "seasoned" sys admins don't use it. You can learn to use screen in a day -- Ctrl-A and ? will help. I change this keyboard binding with the "escape" command, since I'm a bash user.

Start your screen sessions from the console when you boot the box, then attach to it under X and remotely over Ssh.

Unfortunately screen does not solve the problem of persisting X-windows applications, and if you use an server over Wifi, this can be a real problem. Try xmove, though it doesn't cope well with loss of connectivity. There's a little tutorial here.

There is a commercial app called Recon-X, which I haven't had a chance to try and would like to know of any FOSS alternatives. Check the product page here.

Why shouldn't Debian run on various kernels - Linux, Hurd, Solaris, Interix... the list goes on. I'd personally like to see Debian running on Microsoft's Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications (Interix), which will be included with Windows 2003 Server R2 and apparently also future operating systems like Vista. Here's my post to debian-win32 from last week:

To: debian-win32@lists.debian.org
Subject: Debian GNU/Interix (Windows 2003 Server R2)?
From: Sam Johnston
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:55:31 +0000

Afternoon all,

Windows 2003 Server R2 is to ship shortly with a POSIX subsystem
(Interix 5.2 of Services for Unix fame) which "includes more than 300
UNIX utilities and tools that behave as they would on UNIX systems,
plus a software development kit (SDK) that supports more than 1,900
UNIX APIs and migration tools, including make, rcs, yacc, lex, cc,
c89, nm, strip, gbd, as well as the gcc, g++, and g77 compilers.".
Apparently future versions of Windows (eg Vista) will follow suit.

With a tweak of config.guess I have had no problems compiling
bash-3.0, wget, etc. on Windows 2003 and am now interested in tacking
some more interesting packages, like dpkg and apt, with a view to
getting a full port of Debian running on it. The problem is that I
have limited time and porting experience, and the fact that this was
previously attempted under Cygwin is disconcerting; the debian-win32
mailing list has been around for years and yet there there has only
been one non-spam post in the last 18 months according to the
archives.

According to http://www.interix.com/ many interesting packages have
already been ported over and are currently available for download for
$30 as 'Interop Toolworks 2.2'
(http://www.interix.com/InteropToolworks.htm). Presumably source is
provided/available - I have posted the question in their Unix Tools
forum as I figure this would be a good starting point.

While there's no X server included, the X libraries are and the new
release opens up the Win32 API which should pave the way for someone
to build one. In the mean time Starnet Software do ship a free 'LX'
version which will accept localhost connections only
(http://www.starnet.com/xwin32LX/get_xwin32LX.htm) .

At this stage I'm looking for feedback about the viability of such a
project, information about why the last one appears to have failed and
any suggestions about what the procedure would be (eg build dpkg, then
debootstrap etc.), how best to ensure its success, and so on. I would
like to think it will be possible to bootstrap a base Debian
installation (Debian GNU/Interix?) from an installer executable, or
possibly even deliver it via ActiveX, eventually getting to the point
where one can log into Windows and get a full Debian desktop complete
with your favourite window manager.

For the time being I'll be happy with bash, OpenSSH, etc. but it's
interesting to consider what is possible... SFU/SUA was meant as a
migration path *to* Windows, but there's nothing stopping it from
being a two way street.

Sam

Unix Reference Guide

Unless you have a Unix machine sitting on your desktop, you're probably accessing it through telnet or a command-line shell.


I have had shamelessly lived on others' *nix boxes using X-Win32 and Cygwin/X for a long time

(Karma be damned; I am no better than an AC anyway)

Unix Reference Guide

Unless you have a Unix machine sitting on your desktop, you're probably accessing it through telnet or a command-line shell.


I have had shamelessly lived on others' *nix boxes using X-Win32 and Cygwin/X for a long time

(Karma be damned; I am no better than an AC anyway)

Start method is rexec

Start method is rexec

Another one is X-Win32 from StarNet. Works pretty well, and runs root-less (I think it can also run 'in a window').

Xwin32 looks to be what he is looking for. X server for windows. Seems to be whats needed here.

Are we talking about the same XWin32? I'm talking about this one (though I run an old, old version: 3.2.5, from 1995).

I'm sure there must be many solutions that won't cost anything, or at least very little. If you really want to do X-windows on the PC, I highly recommend XWin32 from Starnet. If you're interested in free or shareware TN3270 clients, then I suggest you start downloading any of these.

In my experience, X-Win32 from Starnet also works very well. And don't forget Cygwin/XFree86, a Windows port of XFree86.

Let's see... Besides http://www.hummingbird.com/products/nc/exceed/inde x.html, there's X-Win32, WinaXe, and MI/X"

If you run VNC over SSH compression I find it to be a decent soultion. I usually use the viewer with the -bgr233 (xvncviewer) or restrict pixels to 8-bot (for windows).

Someone on the rdesktop mailing list mentioned creating a RDP server for UNIX, similar to the VNC server. How well it works, if it works with MS RDP clients, and where to find more information I do not know.

Lastly, Citrix has created versions of MetaFrame for Solaris 2.6, 7, and 8 on SPARC and 7 and 8 on x86, AIX 4.3.3, and HP-UX 11.0. Too bad they don't do Linux.

no matter what anyone says, VNC is _not_ a reasonable alternative to remote X sessions. Its slow and requires that the whole screen be displayed instead of just the one running program. For example, i use remote X to control my home mp3 player with gqmpeg, if i were using VNC i would have to look at the whole desktop, it wouldn't be transparent like this is. What VNC is good for is viewing Windows desktops in unix or other, since windows doesn't really have much remote admin to speak of. Seeing how my Windows box is 2 rooms over (i don't want to contaminate this room) VNC works out for me very well in that situation. There was actually just an ask /. about free Win32 x-servers alittle while ago. The one i like is X-Win32 which is available at www.starnet.com and while it isn't free it is a pretty good product.

Nothing can substitute personal experience. I've tried just about every Linux distribution, and never taken heed of reviewers doing one paragraph showdown articles. If you want real reviews, just log in to IRC or other chat community and ask people what they like.

In the context of the C|net article, I think slackware and debian definitely deserve what they received. There's no point in complaining when they are catering to their audience (well, the majority of it at least). I know a lot of people who are willing to try linux now, but *really* do need that support or toll free number. There is nothing wrong with that. I'd need a toll free number if I was trying to install a stereo in my car.. so what?

Regarding Redhat, I never experienced much instability with Gnome. It was slow, yes, but not particularly instable. The only application that I found annoying was LinuxConf. This was because it often didn't work as it was supposed to (well that and the incredibly ugly rc file setup). It's not so bad as a workstation though. I'm not really into tweaking workstation setups anyway.

I like Corel Linux too. In fact it is my current favorite. Now, when people ask me to install linux, I install Corel Linux. It has a pretty good installer, kde + some proprietary applications of their own, and some application frontends to debian. I've ran into some installation difficulties in the 10 or so systems I have installed, but it hasn't acted up much.

Slackware though? I can't stand having to compile half the applications that I install (well that or having fun setting up RPM). The debian package and freebsd ports collections are what I use because I really don't like wasting my time when installing applications. The installer is 'OK, but not that intuitive -- there is also no net install a' la Redhat or freebsd et al. It's a pretty good distro only if you enjoy endless hours of tweaking. Well, unless you only want a basic system install.

For the more technically inclined (or those willing to spend time learning things instead of just giving up), I'd say Debian is king. I was amazed the first time I used dpkg. The system setup was also elegant to me, because it matched my mindset. I think it's the closest to a standard system setup than any other distro available. It feels good to actually have a system where you know where everything is. The DOS install was also cool. I didn't even have to go find some old floppy disks to initiate an install :).

Really though, I find installing and playing with each distro fun, even if i find it's not what I like. That's why, right now, I have about 8 systems between work and here, each with something different on it. Heck, I'm even playing with windows98 + X-win32 on remote FreeBSD + wmaker and various X apps running on Linux to Solaris to HP/UX all on my win32 desktop (hey, I've got to use Symantec V. Cafe). It's pretty nice, except for the 3-8 weekly reboots due to various unknown OS problems :).

Most people don't have that many systems to play on though, so I do understand that you may want more advanced reviews; but understand that C|net isn't the right forum for that. Maybe someone will answer your plea now, and do as such -- though the more technically inclined and more experienced with a system people get, the more opinionative and tending to like particulars, soo ...

Starnet sells XWin32, but the demo version of it works well. It exits after 2 hours of use, unless you fork over the cash (you can start it again, but your X apps will have to be restarted too.) One cool feature which I haven't seen in other non-unix X servers (not that I've tried many, but I've seen eXceed and Mi/X on a Mac) is that you can set it to open X windows as top level windows managed by MS Windoze's WM. (then you don't need to run a UNIX WM.) You can use the traditional one-big-window style, too. The only disadvantage to xwin32 is that it is non-free (speech). It's a nice free beer, though, even if you can only drink it for 2 hours at a time :)
#define X(x,y) x##y

I have three XWindows servers installed on my computer: XFree86 (whoops, doesn't count, only works when I'm not running Windows), StarNet's X-Win32, and MI/X (free version) which I run when the other two aren't convenient.

I get best compatibility and features with XFree (duh) but when I need to multitask with Win apps, it doesn't always work.

StarNet puts out an excellent XWindows server at $200, with special academic licensing. It has some pretty nifty features, like automatic rsh login, various windowing models (my favorite just puts each app in its own windows-style window), and scrolling (if part of your app's window is offscreen and you move the mouse "off the edge of the screen," if moves the clipped portion of the window onto the screen, providing an excellent "virtual desktop" but on the app level, not on the desktop level).

I don't have the pay version, but a demo is available (requires registration with StarNet). The demo version that I have has two restrictions: 2 hour session time limit (logs out after 2 hours), and it won't let you log in if someone else on your subnet is using the demo version (so you might not want to share with other people on your network if you are selfish). This usually isn't a problem for me, since I use the program for academic work, not professional work. The demo restrictions may have been changed since I got my copy.

When someone else on my net is already using it (I wasn't selfish enough ) I load up MI/X and it works fine.