On 3/3/11 7:48 PM, Dr. Ed Morbius wrote:
>
> It's not the ports. It's the graphical presentation. Oh, and I've run
> NX.
I do like the way gnome collapses the icons in the task bar when you have enough
of them - and pops up the list so you can see it. It makes it easy to find the
terminal session connected to some particular remote host.
> I'm really just fine with terminal windows and SSH-forwarded apps if
> those are necessary.
But why do you need screen, then?
> I don't keep enough state running remotely to make it worth my time to
> have another level of nested desktop cruft to deal with. Ties up too
> much real-estate for no win. As I've noted several times: I've already
> got SSH local/remote.
I don't think of it as a remote desktop - it's 'my' desktop. It just goes where
I go with everything still running.
> For NX I'd have to install clients and servers,
> and X libraries. For something I really don't want or need in the first
> place.
That makes it sound complicated. It's really just having what you have on your
current desktop running in a freenx session and connecting from a client
wherever you are.
> While I could see the value for someone /not/ running a native Linux
> desktop environment. I'm /not/ trying to change your mind about
> anything, maybe just open it up a tad to see my PoV.
Having cut/paste access between applications on different OS's is a plus, but
the real benefit is always having access to the same desktop that almost never
stops. And no need to run something like screen. I do run a separate session
in a remote office as well for better connectivity to machines in that location
and a few others for special purposes, but I prefer it even for the main way I
access a local machine.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com