Slashdot Mirror
Making Mac OS X Work Like X Windows?
X Fiend asks: "Is it possible to configure Mac OS X's window manager to run in a client-server mode like X Windows? I'd like to use my (rather anemic) iBook as an X Terminal, with apps running on my (manly dual-processor) desktop machine, but I don't want to have to use X Windows to do it- I want to use Mac OS X's native window manager. Any ideas?"
The closest you'll get to this is using software like VNC, Apple Remote Desktop, or Timbuktu to display the desktop's screen on your laptop.
I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing. -- Thomas Jefferson
http://www.apple.com/remotedesktop/faq.html
/. articles, *EVER*.
...
This is one of the most useless
Go to www.apple.com. Hit the Search field. Type in "Apple Remote Desktop".
'nuff said.
Dude, its not karma-whoring
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Mach usually requires another special process to do TCP/IP message forwarding... my understanding is Mac OS X doesn't currently have this...
You are correct about the design of Mach being such that it can operate on a network transparently. The caveat is you need all the appropriate pieces to do so.
Point b) is also very valid because it details what the intended purpose of different technologies is. Whereas X allows you to load JUST an application, such as eterm, on the remote machine, ARD forces the entire server screen buffer to be loaded...in its own window (blech!). X also lets you log into the server as any user and run programs, regardless of which user is currently logged into the GUI. ARD forces you to use the current user, and takes the machine over.
mithras was right in his analysis of the technology. ARD is to be used in labs, large deployments, etc to manage multiple machines (install files, mass reboot, system status, monitoring, etc), but is hardly a client-server ideal setup like X.
I had heard somewhere that rumors persist of the hooks still existing in OS X, but the APIs are secret. That's not fact though. I WISH Apple would produce a system like that, but I fear they will not. It might also be possible that because of how Display PDF works (creating a PDF for each screen element, then compositing them together), it is not possible to merely send the screen draw APIs. Maybe?
But if you're like me, and you WANT this capability, Tell Apple!
Okay then, now you're starting to get informative.
...
I was under the impression - admittedly a glib one - that it's possible to send remote Aqua events using Applescript over any of the network layers.
I also was under the impression - mistakenly, since you've said ARD is a bitmap pusher - that ARD used this capability to reduce network clutter.
I still don't agree with you that the fact that ARD is meant for teachers makes this unusable. That makes no sense whatsoever. I've used ARD, and I'm certainly no teacher.
X was meant for rocket scientists, but that doesn't stop the kiddies from using it.
The bitmap issue, of course, is key. VNC wins, hands-down - since ARD ain't free.
If it came down to it, though, ARD will still get the job done - and may have the added advantage that with a fast network connection, ARD may one day be able to do such things as play Quicktime movies (albeit buffered) seamlessly
Also, isn't ARD included with all 10.2 Server packages now?
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
here's a link for the only OS X VNC server that I know of:
http://www.redstonesoftware.com/osxvnc/
Other VNC servers and clients can be found at:
www.realvnc.com
It works, but you'd better be running a 100Mbps LAN with plenty of horsepower on both ends of the connection. OS X is a lotta GUI to be managing remotely.
I was under the impression - admittedly a glib one - that it's possible to send remote Aqua events using Applescript over any of the network layers.
...
It may be, but not for ARD.
I also was under the impression - mistakenly, since you've said ARD is a bitmap pusher - that ARD used this capability to reduce network clutter.
If only. It's a bitmap pusher, that's all.
The bitmap issue, of course, is key. VNC wins, hands-down - since ARD ain't free.
VNC is also MUCH more reliable and can easily be invoked (and shut down) from a remote shell.
If it came down to it, though, ARD will still get the job done - and may have the added advantage that with a fast network connection, ARD may one day be able to do such things as play Quicktime movies (albeit buffered) seamlessly
ARD is not suitable as an X replacement. For starters it only supports one client connection at a time. Secondly it freezes - often. No good having a remote admin tool if it doesnt work. Thirdly it's bandwidth intensive, as it's a bitmap pusher. Admittedly bandwidth is becoming less of an issue however the less you need to push around the faster you can do it.
Also, isn't ARD included with all 10.2 Server packages now?
No it isn't, but it should be.
ARD is a screen controller, nothing more. There is also the security aspect - if you are controlling a machine remotely, anyone who is physically able to can see what you are doing and take over at any time. For example - someone sees you log in as the admin, or perhaps root then unplugs the network cable to tinker with the box. This would not be possible with correctly configured X.
So do what Microsoft (unofficially) did - release a 'TweakUI' app which allows you to do this...
That way, it's not something Joe Average can enable by accident, but those who want it can get it.
Mark
Liked this comment? Why not buy me something nice
the multiple user GUI Aqua interface rumor has been running around for a while. most recently Mac OS Rumors has been reporting that it is something Apple is working on. MOSR recommends those who want to be able to use Aqua as if it were X-windows should contact Apple and make the request.
but to answer your question, there is NO way to do what you want short of taking over the desktop machine's screen. (or buying a new faster *book...)
Both NextSTEP and its later Apple incarnation, Rhapsody, included a feature very similar to Xwindows remote hosts: NSHosting.
This was supported by the windowing system, then based on Display Postscript. If my memory serves me well, you could even display an application running on different OSs as long as you had OpenStep installed locally.
Moving to Quartz, this wonderful feature unfortunately didn't make it...
Some say some of the hooks are there for a third party to implement it (CGRemoteOperation.h).
Go to Versiontracker and search for VirtualDesktop. This software besides giving you virtual desktops (up to 100 in a 10 x 10 grid) also enables 'focus follows mouse' which is in essence sloppy focus and works pretty damn well...
try it you won't be dissapointed.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
There is a very good reason for not supporting sloppy focus in OS X. Think about it for a moment... How in the world would you get to the menu bar for an application without that app losing focus? It wouldn't be possible - whatever app you mouse across on the way to the menubar would gain focus, and you'd get the menubar for a different app. The only way to have sloppy focus be even remotely usable would be to add yet another interface hack to allow you to get at the menubar, such as a hotkey which locked the focus to your current window. Sounds kinda yucky to me, frankly...
Remote Desktop Connection Client for Mac OS X
Think of how productive you can be with local OSX Apps, remote OSX Apps, local windows Apps via Virtual PC, remote Windows Apps via WRD, local X11 apps on XDarwin, remote X11 Apps also with XDarwin and a VNC client for your Apple Newton's VNC Server. All on the same desktop.
Given Xfree86, wouldn't it make sense for the open source communtiy to offer an X11 client that could be run on a Mac under OSX? Then, presumably, anyone running Xfree86 could log into such a machine graphically, and run OroborOSX if they wanted to use an Aqua-like window manager. Does this already exist?
Wouldn't Apple would be reinventing this if they were to develop their own graphical remote user interface?
If so, this would not seem to be as useful as X11, which would allow logins from diverse X servers rather than Macs only.
ThosEM