Linux Server, Windows Terminal
January 22, 2003 04:36 PM
I want to setup a Linux server, but all my other computers in the network are Windows. Is there a good Windows Terminal, with nice GUI, that can connect to the Linux machine remote? I''m far from a Linux pro, so please be plain.
1,088
January 22, 2003 04:51 PM
If you want Windows-style file sharing, run a Samba server on the *nix machine. What exactly do you want the server to do/provide?
374
January 22, 2003 05:42 PM
quote: SSH, GUI:s aren''t for linux.
Sigh. It''s people like you that will ruin any chance of linux EVER possibly being a decent desktop alternative to Windows.
January 22, 2003 06:00 PM
"Sigh. It''s people like you that will ruin any chance of linux EVER possibly being a decent desktop alternative to Windows. "
Sure, if you want to use linux as a desktop, install all the bullshit you want, but he''s looking for a linux server. The console is more powerful and can be automated much better than any GUI will allow.
GUI:s only add to the traffic and complexity.
Sure, if you want to use linux as a desktop, install all the bullshit you want, but he''s looking for a linux server. The console is more powerful and can be automated much better than any GUI will allow.
GUI:s only add to the traffic and complexity.
January 22, 2003 06:13 PM
Check out TridiaVNC.. very nice. I use it to get remote X windows on my windows box, from my linux server.
January 23, 2003 08:05 AM
TridiaVNC and RealVNC seem very nice. I want to run KDM or GNOME desktop... The java viewer for RealVNC sounds like a cool thing for accessing the server from anywhere with just a browser. Anything else I should think about? Other alternatives?
217
January 24, 2003 07:01 PM
I haven''t actually used VNC, but I have seen my friend do so. Really nice.
I would suggest running something plain. KDE might be too much to transmit the display from one network to another. You would probably be better off with a basic window manager. But if you want to run either KDE or Gnome, it shouldn''t cause any problems. Just don''t expect to play Quake 3 Arena very smoothly on it.
On a side note, I do agree that the console is much faster. For a beginner who is "far from a Linux pro", VNC might be a nice alternative to using SSH for adminstration.
I have to admit though. Starting from the command line as a beginner allowed me to learn way more than using a GUI, if only because it forced me into figuring out how things worked. I can''t think of a good example right now, but the GUI is meant to hide things from you. While it may be convenient and perfectly fine for someone to not want to see what it is doing, I like the idea that my GNU/Linux systems let me see these things. My roommate is a usability person, so GUIs are his cup of tea. He will make comments like, "It''s people like you that will ruin any chance of Linux ever possibly being a decent desktop alternative to Windows." Mine is being able to know what the GUI is doing behind the scenes. I say, "This is MY operating system. If I want an alternative to Windows, I can make it that way. If I want my system to be something else entirely, I have that option."
Currently my system has all the functionality that my Windows system has. I can browse the web, I can email, I can view/edit images, text, and other files, I can instant message, I can listen to music, watch videos, and I even have Open Office, which mimics MS Office pretty well. In fact, I was worried about having to start up my Windows machine just to view some Power Point presentations for a class, but Open Office read them just fine. I can even play games, like Quake 3 Arena, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, and Tuxracer, among others. And I have GCC and KDevelop for programming.
On top of that functionality, I have a webserver, an ftp server, and, with the exception of some of the games, I can edit and change the programs to my liking.
In any case, I agree with both the AP and CmndrM. If you want to use GNU/Linux as a desktop environment, install whatever you want. Make it look like Windows as much as you want. Heck, make it look like the iMac! But if you want just a Linux server, you won''t need all of that. Still, it is your discretion. GUIs ARE for GNU/Linux, and you can use them if you want. Some people prefer not to.
Perhaps most of what I said is off topic, but this is definitely off if there was a question:
What is funny is the fact that on both sides (GUI vs console) there are people who get passionate about a non-issue.
I once mentioned to my roommate (the usability guy) that I learned how to use vi, and I thought that it was great. He gets defensive, saying that he is perfectly happy with using nano and doesn''t need the crap that vi brings. I was like, "Whoa! All I said was that I liked vi! I never intended to force you to use it! Lighten up!"
But that wasn''t good enough. He had to watch me type, pointing out that pressing ''i'' was one extra key press before I could type something, even though it was pretty fluid and natural for me that I never thought it slowed me down.
Some people.
Whatever you decide you are comfortable with, please don''t become a zealot about it. Some people like GUIs and ease of use, and some people like control and precision. The great thing about GNU/Linux systems is that you have a choice.
I would suggest running something plain. KDE might be too much to transmit the display from one network to another. You would probably be better off with a basic window manager. But if you want to run either KDE or Gnome, it shouldn''t cause any problems. Just don''t expect to play Quake 3 Arena very smoothly on it.
On a side note, I do agree that the console is much faster. For a beginner who is "far from a Linux pro", VNC might be a nice alternative to using SSH for adminstration.
I have to admit though. Starting from the command line as a beginner allowed me to learn way more than using a GUI, if only because it forced me into figuring out how things worked. I can''t think of a good example right now, but the GUI is meant to hide things from you. While it may be convenient and perfectly fine for someone to not want to see what it is doing, I like the idea that my GNU/Linux systems let me see these things. My roommate is a usability person, so GUIs are his cup of tea. He will make comments like, "It''s people like you that will ruin any chance of Linux ever possibly being a decent desktop alternative to Windows." Mine is being able to know what the GUI is doing behind the scenes. I say, "This is MY operating system. If I want an alternative to Windows, I can make it that way. If I want my system to be something else entirely, I have that option."
Currently my system has all the functionality that my Windows system has. I can browse the web, I can email, I can view/edit images, text, and other files, I can instant message, I can listen to music, watch videos, and I even have Open Office, which mimics MS Office pretty well. In fact, I was worried about having to start up my Windows machine just to view some Power Point presentations for a class, but Open Office read them just fine. I can even play games, like Quake 3 Arena, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, and Tuxracer, among others. And I have GCC and KDevelop for programming.
On top of that functionality, I have a webserver, an ftp server, and, with the exception of some of the games, I can edit and change the programs to my liking.
In any case, I agree with both the AP and CmndrM. If you want to use GNU/Linux as a desktop environment, install whatever you want. Make it look like Windows as much as you want. Heck, make it look like the iMac! But if you want just a Linux server, you won''t need all of that. Still, it is your discretion. GUIs ARE for GNU/Linux, and you can use them if you want. Some people prefer not to.
Perhaps most of what I said is off topic, but this is definitely off if there was a question:
What is funny is the fact that on both sides (GUI vs console) there are people who get passionate about a non-issue.
I once mentioned to my roommate (the usability guy) that I learned how to use vi, and I thought that it was great. He gets defensive, saying that he is perfectly happy with using nano and doesn''t need the crap that vi brings. I was like, "Whoa! All I said was that I liked vi! I never intended to force you to use it! Lighten up!"
But that wasn''t good enough. He had to watch me type, pointing out that pressing ''i'' was one extra key press before I could type something, even though it was pretty fluid and natural for me that I never thought it slowed me down.
Some people.
Whatever you decide you are comfortable with, please don''t become a zealot about it. Some people like GUIs and ease of use, and some people like control and precision. The great thing about GNU/Linux systems is that you have a choice.
-------------------------GBGames' Blog: An Indie Game Developer's Somewhat Interesting ThoughtsStaff Reviewer for Game Tunnel
118
January 27, 2003 12:58 AM
quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster
"Sigh. It''s people like you that will ruin any chance of linux EVER possibly being a decent desktop alternative to Windows. "
Sure, if you want to use linux as a desktop, install all the bullshit you want, but he''s looking for a linux server. The console is more powerful and can be automated much better than any GUI will allow.
GUI:s only add to the traffic and complexity.
Yes and no. Using the console is more efficient than using the GUI in general (sometimes you can use shortcut keys and be as efficient, or maybe more). In addition, the GUI allows you to use multiple consoles simultaneously, and multiple desktops to further keep things organized when you are in heavy work mode. Instead of thinking "console vs. gui", think "console + gui". You compare them as if they are mutually exclusive and cannot be used together. If that were the case, then your comments would be true.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
