Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Operating Systems Software The Internet Windows

A Network Attached Windows Box? 114

Posted by Cliff from the this-shouldn't-be-too-hard dept.
Richard Weidmann asks: "Can a Windows box be attached to a local network as freely available resource? I use Mac OS X and Linux but sometimes it is simply convenient to have a Windows computer to do some specific task or run some specific program. I would like to run my Windows computer headless in the network in such a fashion that I can access it easily from the other computers such that: VLC is started, so I see the Windows desktop; the home directory of my current machine is mounted on the Windows box; and my local optical drive can be read from the Windows machine. Has anybody seen such a setup or project?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Network Attached Windows Box? More

A Network Attached Windows Box?

Comments Filter:

  • VNC? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Drantin ( 569921 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @06:47PM (#8798107)
    VLC is a Video Lan Client

    while

    VNC is Virtual Network Computing

    • Re:VNC? (Score:3, Informative)

      by who what why ( 320330 )
      VNC is the way to go. Install either tightvnc or Real VNC [realvnc.com], configured as an NT service, and set the password. Now you can use most desktops apps through VNC (don't bother with anything video related though, although I've never tried that on giga-ethernet).

      For network shares, I use Samba on linux. Click through the "My Network Places" tree to find your linux box, select the share you wish to mount and then right-click to select "Map as Network Drive", and you will be automatically connected at boot to th

      • Re:VNC? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by ditto999999999999999 ( 546129 )
        I use Ultr@VNC from here [sourceforge.net]. It works better the Real, and tight in my experience. If I recall correctly it incorporates all the features of the other VNC's and adds a few new ones, like file transfer, chat, etc.
        • TightVNC + file transfer + chat + custom display driver hack for 2000/XP = Ultr@VNC. I've found it to be faster than RealVNC, even over a 100Mb connection, meaning that there's more than TightVNC compression going on there (100Mb, for VNC purposes, could be considered almost unlimited bandwidth if there's only one VNC server and one client - file size doesn't matter with that much bandwidth).

  • Terminal Services (Score:5, Informative)

    by CosmicDreams ( 23020 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @06:48PM (#8798118) Journal
    I believe this is what Terminal Services is designed for. If you are fortunate enough to have a terminal Serivices Server around you could also configure your home directory and things like that. For an El Cheapo version of this Find a Windows XP machine and turn desktop sharing on.

    The only downside to using the XP machine instead of the TS Server is that it seems to limit you to one connection at a time.

    • Re:Terminal Services (Score:3, Informative)

      by ka9dgx ( 72702 ) *
      You could configure it as a stand-alone Windows 2000 Server, turning on Terminal Services in "remote administration" mode (doesn't require a TS license, but does require the Administrator account to login) and give out the administrator password for people to log in with. (Its a windows box, how much does it really matter?) Then you can log in from wherever, do whatever WinApp you need to do, and keep the rest of your network for other OSs.

      Remove the "default gateway" from its IP configuration to keep it f

      • Re:Terminal Services (Score:2, Insightful)

        by l1_wulf ( 602905 )

        ...give out the administrator password for people to log in with. (Its a windows box, how much does it really matter?)

        You're kidding right? When the vast majority of virii, trojans, hacks, etc. are targetted at MS platforms, to take the stance that security doesn't matter because it is a Windows box is just plain stupid. It's this kind of attitude that makes me sick.

        I can see it now...

        "Bah, fuck it, it's just Windows."

        [four days later...]

        "Man MS sucks ass, it's just a timebomb waiting to explo

        • Insightful M2'ed unfair.
          WinXP. 15 users, admin login hardly ever used. I log in and see about 8 different programs launching in the taskbar, some adware, some spyware, some junk. It installed itself on other users' accounts and spread onto all accounts immediately. in Without admin privledges. But I can't install some important program I need: "Instalation requires administrative privledges". Sorry.
          It's windows. Whether you have admin rights or not, it doesn't matter.
      • Remote Admin mode limits to 2 simulataneous connections. And I don't think it's required that an Admin logs on, so you could create normal accounts and just give them appropiate rights.

        .That being said, I think it's overkill for the original poster.

        Really, the original poster could make do with Windows XP Pro Desktop Sharing or VNC, since he doesn't specify needing multiple connections. The only "issues" would be sharing his local optical drive and connecting to his home directory.

        I assume his home direc

        • But, RDP has better compression and is encrypted

          For local LAN stuff, you don't need much compression. You haven't happened to have heard of TightVNC (or Ultr@VNC on Winboxes), have you? As for encryption, you've already got SSH - do VNC over SSH. The main advantage for RDP is that it automatically mounts your printers and (AFAIK) some drives on the computer you connected to, and that it is hooked into the OS. Ultr@VNC doesn't do QUITE all of that, but it does give you file transfer and graphics driver hoo
          • I actually use TightVNC, and while it's much better than VNC, it doesn't hold up against RDP. Also, the compression options can seriously degrade image quality. I haven't used Ultr@VNC [slashdot.org], but will take a look at it. Especially interesting, besides the video hooking, is the AD integration. I also noticed that it supports plugins for encryption (among other things), but only one [comcast.net] for Win32 is currently available.
      • You can log onto Win2K/Win2K3 TS in Remote Admin mode with any account, assuming the account has the right to "log on locally".

        Removing "default gateway" from the IP configuration won't prevent it from seeing the internet in many cases, depending on how you configure routing/remote access. This is a potentially dangerous and stupid thing to tell someone! The default gateway simply allows that specific host to find the way out of its subnet when NAT and other routing isn't configured.

        Would you give out th
        • Unless you have a local proxy server, and thus don't need to route, the default gateway is the only way to route to any other network. Granted some things may tweak the routing table for you, but generally, no gateway, no internet. Packets could come in, but they couldn't get back out.

          --Mike--

      • Heh, and an easy "undocumented feature" you can use to run win2k terminal server in application mode is to reinstall the server every 90 days as this is the length of time allowed before a connection must be licensed.

        Also as an aside you can install win2k(any sp)/xp(pre sp1) and upon connection to a win2k terminal server in application mode you are given a CAL (client access license for those uninformed) that doesn't require a purchased license.

        For "quick" access to a windows workstation from anywhere you

    • Re:Terminal Services (Score:5, Funny)

      by GiMP ( 10923 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @07:08PM (#8798335)
      There is also a 180-day evaluation of Windows 2003 Server. You have to reinstall every 180 days but you have to do that anyway.
      • Alternatively, you could purchase it for a several thousands of dollars.

        Or you could just install tightVNC and dump Terminal Services altogether. As a bonus your machine can be accessible by virtually any other platform.

        • Terminal services, unlike VNC (on Windows), allows the system to have multiple users logged in at the same time (and no, I don't mean fast-user switching).

          Instead of using VNC, he could just stick with the Remote Desktop Sharing of WindowsXP which is a lot better than VNC.

          You might not want to admit it, but Window's remote desktop is really great. It is much faster, uses client-specified resolutions and bit-depths, and forwards audio. Oh, and you can access it from Windows, Unix/Linux, and MacOS clients

    • Re:Terminal Services (Score:5, Interesting)

      by DA-MAN ( 17442 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @07:24PM (#8798487) Homepage
      Or you can get a Windows XP machine, and buy WinConnect Server XP [thinsoftinc.com]. It allows you to have up to 21 Terminal Server connections on Windows XP.

      It works really well. I'd also suggest using rdesktop [rdesktop.org] on Linux and the Windows Remote Desktop Client [microsoft.com] on the Mac.

      Remote Desktop is much better than VNC, especially when used over the internet because VNC is not encrypted at all. Remote Desktop includes built in 128 bit encryption.
      • KDE 3.2+ also has an RDP client
      • Of course, VNC is encrypted, it just isn't built into all VNC clients/servers. Usually, people run it over ssh, which has the added advatage over Remote Desktop that you don't need any new firewall rules (since ssh usually is already there) and that you don't have to figure out a new key management system.

        If you like, of course, you can also run VNC over stunnel or IPsec.

        When it is useful, some VNC clients/servers (e.g. clients running as Java applets) have the encryption built in.

        As usual, the UNIX sol

        • Re:VNC is encrypted (Score:4, Insightful)

          by DA-MAN ( 17442 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @11:44PM (#8800204) Homepage
          Of course, VNC is encrypted, it just isn't built into all VNC clients/servers. Usually, people run it over ssh, which has the added advatage over Remote Desktop that you don't need any new firewall rules (since ssh usually is already there) and that you don't have to figure out a new key management system.

          I've been using VNC since it's inception and it works great for Unix to Unix with SSH doing the encryption. Here we are talkin Linux/Mac OS to Unix. Unless you buy some commercial SSH Server, or set up cygwin's ssh server on the Windows box then it's probably not going to be encrypted.

          Most VNC's use encryption only for the password and use plaintext transfers for everything else. Not my ideal solution. Remote Desktop has encryption built into the protocol from the start.

          If you like, of course, you can also run VNC over stunnel or IPsec.

          I don't even think IPSec allows for you to communicate with machines on the same LAN on the same Subnet. Besides Remote Desktop has encryption covered already. We're talkin Linux/Mac to Windows communication. This is stupid any which way you cut it. Unix to Unix would use VNC over SSH. Who in their right mind would do something this stupid.

          When it is useful, some VNC clients/servers (e.g. clients running as Java applets) have the encryption built in.

          Name one that does encryption from beginning to end, not just the password. I would like to know if there are any myself.

          As usual, the UNIX solution is simpler, more elegant, more flexible, and more functional than the Windows solution. And, as usual, Windows users like yourself just don't get it.

          As usual trolls like yourself don't bother to read what the user is asking and bash anyone who doesn't tell them to switch to Unix. Your zealotry is only overshadowed by your stupidity.
          • Disclaimer: I've skimmed down to about this far, but keep dozing off because it's been a long day; so, if I repeated something or missed reading something, then please forgive.

            I recommend using SFU [Services For Unix]. It's a Unix environment provided by Microsoft, so for the most part, I expect it to work. The standard Unix utilities are all GPL. After installing this, I would never go back to Samba. My favourite application that you can install on SFU is OpenSSH. So, that means that you can have an SSH s
          • You solution is fine and dandy for heavy usage over the Internet.

            However, it doesn't sound like this is the case. It sounds like the asker will be using this system lightly to moderately, over a local network. Therefore, can you justify this:

            WinConnect Server XP can be purchased for US $299.95 for a three user license.

            Even if it's only $100 for one user, for the kind of use he implies, that money could be better spent. VNC (and ssh---yes, even through Cygwin---if necessary) sounds just right; RD would be o

            • Re:VNC is encrypted (Score:3, Informative)

              by DA-MAN ( 17442 )

              However, it doesn't sound like this is the case. It sounds like the asker will be using this system lightly to moderately, over a local network. Therefore, can you justify this:

              WinConnect Server XP can be purchased for US $299.95 for a three user license.

              Even if it's only $100 for one user, for the kind of use he implies, that money could be better spent. VNC (and ssh---yes, even through Cygwin---if necessary) sounds just right; RD would be overkill.

              XP doesn't need WinConnect Server XP to do Remot
          • For a client with ssh integrated into it, look around with Google for Java implementations of vnc and ssh; it's been done and is prettx easy to find. I used to run it on some servers.

            If you don't want to install ssh on your Windows machine, use stunnel. It's an easy install on Windows and works well with VNC.

            On linux, UNIX, and MacOS, running VNC securely is trivial. The fact that it's more work on Windows is a limitation of Windows, not VNC.

            Note that for the regular edition of XP, you don't even have
            • On linux, UNIX, and MacOS, running VNC securely is trivial. The fact that it's more work on Windows is a limitation of Windows, not VNC.

              Not nessecarily. It's more of a limitation of the original protocol. Remember you use VNC over SSH. It's not cumbersome on UNIX. But in Windows where SSH is not there by default it is cumbersome. Different tool for a different architecture style altogether.

              Note that for the regular edition of XP, you don't even have a choice: it just doesn't support RDP.

              Very Good Poin

          • IPSec on same subnet (Score:3, Informative)

            by smcv ( 529383 )
            I don't even think IPSec allows for you to communicate with machines on the same LAN on the same Subnet.

            I don't know about the Windows implementation, but KAME (the *BSD IPSec stack, also used in Mac OS X, Linux 2.6 and Debian's patched Linux 2.4) looks as though it will do that fine.

            Set up a policy for all traffic from anywhere to your Windows box, and vice versa, to have mandatory encryption in tunnel mode.

            You will then need to to set up more specific policies for UDP port 500 (isakmp), and for proto
          • I don't even think IPSec allows for you to communicate with machines on the same LAN on the same Subnet.

            W2K and up does this flawlessly. It's very easy, actually - just set up a policy on the domain and you can require, request, or deny IPSec on a per-port basis, even. Add Windows PKI services, and your security increases to a per-PC PKI keypair instead of a per-domain shared PKI keypair.
      • Remote Desktop is much better than VNC, especially when used over the internet because VNC is not encrypted at all. Remote Desktop includes built in 128 bit encryption.

        Except RDP was never meant to be used over the Internet. It is vulnerable to a Man-in-the-Middle attack.

        • Except RDP was never meant to be used over the Internet. It is vulnerable to a Man-in-the-Middle attack.

          Would you mind pointing me to proof of this statement?
    • Microsoft claims that when SP2 comes out windoze will allow multiple remote desktop connections. Methinks probably only 1 for each configured user tho.

  • Am I missing something? (Score:5, Informative)

    by pardey ( 568849 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @06:48PM (#8798120)
    VNC [tightvnc.com] and Samba [samba.org] should do the trick. Robin
    • The problem with that is that sometimes Windows doesn't like to do things on a samba share, such as installing a program to a samba share I believe.

      • Re:Am I missing something? (Score:3, Informative)

        by GiMP ( 10923 )
        FUD. You can do anything to a samba share that you can do on a share hosted by a Windows box.
        • I'm not anything like an expert. But correct me if I'm wrong. Does Samba allow you to control individual file and directory permissions per user as NTFS does? If not then that would be something that you can do with a share hosted on a windows box that you can't do with samba.

          But like I said, I'm no expert, or even a newbie. So please inform me.
          • The SMB protocol and NTFS are two distinctly different things. On Win2K with NTFS, you have security rights associated with the filesystem (i.e. what you can do to a file or folder on that machine even logged in locally), and share rights associated with the share (i.e. what you can do to a file or folder over the network). Many admins prefer to leave the share rights alone (so the "Everyone" group has full access), and then restrict per user access at the filesystem. This way someone who normally has no ri
        • Actually its true. There are a few rare circumstances where a share behaves slightly different. For instance, the single EXE nav2002 install wont install from a share.
          • For instance, the single EXE nav2002 install wont install from a share.

            To install NAV over a network you need the corporate edition. The same goes for other apps designed for home users and small companies. If it's not a local drive, they refuse to run and/or install. It's not just an issue of licenses either; there are lots of issues with file locking and allowing multiple users to access the same data files that the developers have to address before allowing network install and/or use.
            • Intersting, are you saying it is by design then? or just a quirk? not quite sure from your message
              • It's probably more like a "profitable design quirk". Symantec has at least a half dozen different versions of NAV with multiple install and configuration options, the only difference being cost. Peachtree has some network-centric accounting software aimed at small to mid sized companies, so I assume they limit by design as well.
        • Peach Tree Accounting will not run on a Samba Share. The developers are researching why.

      • Re:Am I missing something? (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Really, that's not true at all. Samba not only supports everything ona a share that Windows does, but according to some tests it is significantly faster than Windows.
      • The problem with that is that sometimes Windows doesn't like to do things on a samba share, such as installing a program to a samba share I believe.

        I've done these installations successfully. I work in a high school, we have about fifty W98 workstations using programs installed on a single Linux server.

  • Remote Desktop (Score:5, Informative)

    by Chester K ( 145560 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @06:48PM (#8798128) Homepage
    Windows XP and higher support Remote Drive Sharing and Remote Sound over a regular Remote Desktop connection. Windows 2000 and below support Remote Desktop (well, the same protocol, but it's Terminal Services), but don't support the drive sharing or sound forwarding.

    • Re:Remote Desktop (Score:4, Informative)

      by Whatchamacallit ( 21721 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @07:13PM (#8798372) Homepage
      Actually, this works quite well for me. There is a Remote Desktop Client for Mac OS X available at http://microsoft.com/mac - other products - Remote Desktop Connection for Mac.

      It comes down to what you use more often, the Mac or the Linux box. If the Mac is your main workstation then you should have no problems if you run WinXP Pro on the PC and use the Remote Desktop client for the Mac.

      My main workstation is a Dual PowerMac G5 w/Dual Apple 17" Studio displays. Secondary machine is a PowerBook G4. I also have a Sun Blade 100 and 3 Linux boxes as well. Then there is the fiance's Sony Vaio desktop. I use RDC to connect to the WinXP Pro box. I simply ssh into the Linux and Sun boxes or forward X11 windows.

      You will need WinXP Pro as the Home version does not include Remote Desktop abilities.
    • Windows 2000 and below support Remote Desktop (well, the same protocol, but it's Terminal Services), but don't support the drive sharing or sound forwarding.

      I am assuming you are talking about the server here, but you are incorrect; Windows 2000 Terminal Services definitely does support remote drive access and sound to clients.
      • I am assuming you are talking about the server here, but you are incorrect; Windows 2000 Terminal Services definitely does support remote drive access and sound to clients.

        I stand corrected.

  • you need Citrix (Score:4, Informative)

    by stonebeat.org ( 562495 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @06:49PM (#8798136) Homepage
    I think what you need is Citrix. It lets you access your drives as local drive, among other things.
    • also since https://www.gotomypc.com/ [gotomypc.com] is now a part of citrix, you have more choices in Accessing Information On Demand

    • Re:you need Citrix (Score:2, Interesting)

      by RupertJ ( 520598 )
      For one system?!!?! I certainly hope you're joking! I've setup Citrix systems for hundreds of users, and it's no walk in the park if you want the system accessible as well as secure. For those of you who do use Citrix with Microsoft Office products, investigate AppSense for keeping things locked down. VNC with properly configured IP filtering and/or a firewall would be better here.

  • VPC (Score:3, Informative)

    by cybermace5 ( 446439 ) <g.ryan@macetech.com> on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @06:52PM (#8798174) Homepage Journal
    You have a Macintosh. Get Virtual PC, foo'. That's all there is to it. It works.
    • I'll second that. Especially if your Mac is a notebook. Then, when you need to run some Windows app and you're away from home, it will be with you, not running headless on your home LAN hundreds of miles away.
    • It's laggy and generally a bad joke compared to a $200 PC.

      I'm planning on buying a reasonably slim single board computer with a P3 mobile on it, and putting it into a very thin metal enclosure with an external power supply hookup. The biggest problem is reliable video from it - XP costs money and has horrible registration crap I am avoiding, Win2k which I have a liscence for needs terminal server, and even then I think it won't run on the workstation edition.

      VNC is buggy. It's fine for a terminal, but oft

  • An Alternative to Windows services (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Jorkapp ( 684095 ) <jorkapp&hotmail,com> on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @06:56PM (#8798220)
    Plenty of people do this over Local and Wide area networks. A webserver.

    Install a piece of windows compatible webserver software (IIS - Recommended, Apache, or whatever else floats your boat). Create a page or two of ASP/PHP scripts which are designed to run the applications. Whenever you need to execute the apps, point a web browser over the network to the pages. ...Just make sure that your windows box is either disconnected from the 'net or disallowed to access the 'net, elsewise you'll have people from Khazakstan executing those apps instead of you.

  • Dear Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @06:59PM (#8798244) Journal
    Summary: I have a question. I want to have a headless Windows box on a network with access to my files and want to have remote control over the box. This can be done with VNC and NFS/other network file system. Are there any projects to do this?

    Not to flame, but why don't you just *do* what you just suggested?

    If I want to delete a file called "foo", I don't submit a story to Slashdot saying "I want to delete a file called 'foo' on my computer. I know that I can do by by running the command rm foo. Has anyone done the same thing before?" I just run the command.

  • A Network Attached Windows Box? (Score:5, Funny)

    by pizza_milkshake ( 580452 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @06:59PM (#8798250)
    i wouldn't do that.
  • You'll need a version of XP Pro. XP home has this striped out. Turn on Remote Desktop Sharing. I have an OSX laptop and several linux boxes around, and use the MS remote desktop client to access the windows boxes. rdesktop on the linux machines does the trick.

    We use VNC to manage our NT4 servers, and its not near as nice as the build in stuff through XP (which is licensed from Citrix I think?) Over a network connetion, its like sitting in front of the machine (very eery looking at an XP desktop on my p

    • Can you copy files from the Windows remote client to the local computer?

      I've got W2K at home and frequently VPN into my XP machine at work. But I've not been able to figure out how to copy files to the local machine.
      • Its real picky about it. I can get text to copy and paste, but I can't copy a file and paste it to the remote desktop. One of the MS client options is to mount a local disk on the remote computer. This works for me if I'm on the same LAN, it doesn't work if I'm at home or at another location. I usually end up emailing the file to myself or something of that nature.

        p

        • Here's where I run into trouble, though. Since this PC only has one NIC, the VPN connection prohibits me from using the internet connection for anything other than the RDP client. So even if I were to email the file to myself, I'd have to shut down the VPN link just to retrieve the file.

          Funny thing is, on Win98 the VPN connection mounts the remote filesystem on the local machine so that it is accessible as a local disk. The RDP client is flaky (as is anything running on 98), but the accessible filesyste
      • remote desktop control is not about transfering files, if you wish to do that .. use ftp, http, scp, or other protocols.
  • I ran a headless Windoze box for specific tasks first using VNC then Terminal Services. It works rather well and it's nice to have Winduhs in proper chains.

  • Some options: (Score:5, Informative)

    by cornice ( 9801 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @07:41PM (#8798635)
    This has been done before. Try:

    Wine [winehq.com] if you just want a few Windows apps on your PC.
    Win4Lin [netraverse.com] if you really want Windows on your PC.
    VMWare [vmware.com] if you want XP on your PC.
    TightVNC [tightvnc.com] if you want to access a Windows box from another box.
    Samba [samba.org] if you want to share your drives back to your Windows box.
  • If you really want the windows box be on a separate computer I would use VNC but I run windows through vmware when I need to.
    Then both OS's are run at the same time on the same computer, Windows runs like every other app on Linux
    http://vmware.com
  • I have a home network running Linux, OpenBSD and OS X, but there are still a few applications one Windows I would like to run. I have eaten up WAY too much of my life attempting to configure working Bochs/WINE configurations, and had just made the decision to set up a headless Windows box for this task.

    Is there anything that lets you export MSWindows windows rootless to a different machine like Remote X?

    In case anyone's interested, the number one reason is DC++ P2P App [slashdot.org], for which there is not a suitable

  • Tarantella does all this (Score:4, Informative)

    by Kevin Burtch ( 13372 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:08PM (#8798847)
    Try Tarantella, made by the folks who USED to be called SCO (the ones who sold the name to Caldera).

    This product is much like Citrix, but _much_ easier to administer and requires zero software be loaded on the machines the display is coming from or the ones the display is being forwarded to.
    Oh, and it runs on Solaris or Linux!

    The client uses any Java capable web-browser... can't get any simpler than that.

    You will still need the MS-Windows box to actually run the apps on and provide the display, etc.

    Tarantella will not only provide access to your local drives, but also your printers (configurable for security).

    The data is also encrypted, so it's safe to use this as a remote-access method via the internet.

    http://www.tarantella.com/

    As a disclaimer, I should mention that I not only use this at work for remote access, but I work for a Tarantella reseller.
    With this in mind, note that I'm pointing you to Tarantella's site, not the company I work for (we won't see any profit if you get it from someone else).
    I just happen to like the product better than its alternatives.
    • Well, I'm not questioning ease of administration, but I will question your comparison to Citrix functionality. I'll address your issues in the order you present them.
      1. "requires zero software be loaded on the machines the display is coming from or the ones the display is being forwarded to."...I'd love to see software that can be run on a remote computer allowing arbitrary execution...sounds like an exploit to me ;)
      2. Platform independance: Citrix supports lots of platforms (not just Windows [citrix.com], Solaris/Sparc [citrix.com]

      • I wasn't comparing Tarantella to Citrix other than the ease-of-administration.

        "requires zero software be loaded on the machines the display is coming from or the ones the display is being forwarded to."...I'd love to see software that can be run on a remote computer allowing arbitrary execution...sounds like an exploit to me ;)

        This is the one place where Tarantella really wins, in an environment with different admins and paranoid security (they're afraid to break anything by adding external software).
        It

    • Serious question here: What is the purpose of Citrix, Tarantella, pcAnywhere, and the like?

      In the way olden days, I heard that a legitimate use of Citrix was to get Windows-ish performance out of x286 hardware. For example, if you had 1,000 users on x286 machines, and brand spanking new x486/Pentium boxes cost $2000 each, then for an upgrade to something capable of running Windows 3.1x or Windows 95, your hardware costs alone would be $2,000,000. Fine. Say five massive Citrix servers, at $100,000 per, se

      • A few pop to mind.

        1.
        You have an app that requires a serious amount of computing power, and a bunch of people who use it.... you don't want to buy each one a $40k monster, so you just by one.

        2.
        Ease of administration... you only have to install/tweak/fight-with/de-virus/etc. one box.

        3.
        Remote access... this is the biggie. At my company, many people need to access internal applications (that involve databases, etc.) remotely, this allows them to work from home, customer sites, etc.

        With Tarantella, you don't

        • You have an app that requires a serious amount of computing power, and a bunch of people who use it.... you don't want to buy each one a $40k monster, so you just by one.

          Fine, but it sounds like you've taken an App that was designed for single-users, placed it on a Citrix [or Tarantella] box, and tried to force the App [against its nature] to become a multi-user App.

          Why not purchase an App that was designed to run on a server in multi-user mode, and run it from the server to begin with? The only reason

      • Apples and oranges. PcAnywhere is vastly different from Citrix. Citrix can make things appear as if they are on your desktop, not in a remote window. The major advantage is centralised administration. All the user needs on their machine is the client, which they can get from the internal webpage for logging in to Citrix. Anyone on the road can also log in and get their desktop anywhere in the world they can get on the internet. Your support costs go way, way down using this method. If someone 6,000 miles aw

  • Use rdesktop (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gonza ( 769462 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:02PM (#8799224)
    WinXP Pro has "Remote Desktop Sharing", so enable that and simply use rdesktop [rdesktop.org] from your *nix box. It's that easy. If you want your home directory mounted on your Windoze box, then use SAMBA [samba.org] on your *nix box as a PDC (Primary Domain Controller) and have your Windoze box log in to this domain (You can then setup SAMBA to automatically mount the home directory on the Windoze box as Z: or whatever). That should do it.
    • Just an aside, but Z: should normally not be mapped in a Windows domain, as Win9x uses Z: to map the NETLOGON share to run logon scripts. I realize that Win9x is fading away, and it's possible that the poster doesn't have Win9x, but there's very little reason to use a Z:.

      Having done more than a few Netware to Windows and peer-to-peer to domain migrations that were made a good deal more complicated by the presence of a Z:, I 'd like to point out that in Windows environments, it's SOP to use H: as HOME. And

  • We have such a setup (Score:3, Informative)

    by mnmn ( 145599 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:28PM (#8799373) Homepage
    Yes sir. It is called Terminal Services (read: Citrix) and thats how half of our company functions. We even have an awesome 3.2GHz Xeon dual-cpu hyperthreaded xSeries 235 with 6 RAIDED disks, serving many applications to many users as a test server. Looks like we can linearly scale the server's power with the number of users, until the requirements give in and we switch to Sun.

    Terminal Services come with Windows 2000 Server, but I believe can be seperately installed with Windows2000 pro.

    Note also many hosting providers are offering dedicated servers accessible by PC Anywhere.

    • Yes sir. It is called Terminal Services (read: Citrix) and thats how half of our company functions. We even have an awesome 3.2GHz Xeon dual-cpu hyperthreaded xSeries 235 with 6 RAIDED disks, serving many applications to many users as a test server. Looks like we can linearly scale the server's power with the number of users, until the requirements give in and we switch to Sun.

      Terminal Services Remote Admin mode comes with Windows 2000/2003/SBS Server, but is limited to 2 simultaneous connections. Term

      • Being a Windows admin, sometimes I wonder about the Windows knowledge of the average /.'er. Being a relatively newbie to Linux, this then makes me wonder about the Linux knowledge of the average /.'er. (Note that this isn't directed at you, but rather at the general discussion.)

        Being a windows admin myself, among other things, I have noticed that the average slashdot poster fears Windows like the plague. It's amazing how much people here judge everything made by microsoft without even bothering to check
    • WinXP has terminal services. Only one user at a time, but unlike the 2000 terminal server, it supports more than 256 colors. I'd also recommend grdesktop and rdesktop as clients (grdesktop is a gui for rdesktop) on the Linux side. Terminal services is much better than VNC.
  • I have two machines on my work desktop: P4 2.6, SuSE 9, 3 video cards, 3 x 17" monitor, many virtual desktops on each. P4 2.6, Win2k Server, Headless. Through the magic of RDesktop [rdesktop.org], I access the Win2k server for Outlook, and Visio. Aside from that it is used as file storage and IIS testbed.

    RDesktop works as well as or better than the Windows or Mac term-serv clients. However, if you want full color (>256) and full sound support, you'll need WinXP or .Net server, its support for RDP 5.1 allows this

    • Why not use DMX? (Score:2, Informative)

      by TheScienceKid ( 611371 )

      Since you don't have any more free slots, why not set up an older machine with a NIC and a few matrox graphics cards (I bet you could fit a GigE card and five triple-head parhelia cards in there.... just need to win the irish lottery now, eh?) and use DMX to distribute your display over 18 (that's your 3 + 15) screens? It'd be a pain scrolling slashdot though ;)

      So, here's that url...

      http://dmx.sourceforge.net/

      ...but don't answer yet... just look what else you get...

      Dynamic MAXSCREENS [mail-archive.com]

      Regards,
      TheS

  • VNC (Score:2)

    by blate ( 532322 )
    VNC will allow you to access your windows desktop from any routable computer that runs a VNC client. VNC runs on almost every OS, including Palm, I think.

    You won't be able to see remote filesystems unless you can mount them on the windows machine -- for UNIX, you could use Samba... for other OS's, well, I don't know.

    I actually do the opposite from what you want to do -- I run a headless FreeBSD box and then view the VNC (X) desktop remotely on a Windows machine (full-screen, no less). Performance is about

  • Saturday 27 March 2004 I created such a setup for my father. Most of the things that he wants to do know, he can do on Linux (I use Libranet + Debian updates), but he has a scanner which is not supported under Linux, a simple organizer which must exchange data through a Windows program, and a slide scanner, which uses an old Adaptec SCSI card in an ISA slot.

    I set up his Windows computer headless, Win98, and you must use TweakUI for the system to automatically logon on the network. You must also disable th

  • I use Mac OS X and Linux but sometimes it is simply convenient to have a Windows computer to do some specific task

    I agree, windows can be convenient for some things, but I think you will find most OS's come with windows these days.

    MacOS X already comes with a very nice windows system [akamai.net]. Also, have you tried using XWindows [x.org] on GNU/Linux?

    I've got mod points and I would mod this story -1 troll if I could.

  • from the description, you're talking a doze box to be accessed by osx and nix boxen on your lan, but one 'user' behind it all, you. for a time, I had a doze box headless (due to shortage of monitors). used realVNC. the box was a PII 350/384MB running win2kpro. it never went past 16bit @ 800x600 for performance reasons, but it worked. the clients were mostly doze (game box client, the doze box in question was "the dump" a sandbox to use P2P filesharing with). I got a linux client working just fine. Anythi
  • While this was something of a answered-your-own-question question, I'm glad it was posted because it knocked me out of the box my mind was in, trying to figure out a good solution to my own situation. My last for-legacy-apps Windows machine at home is a laptop with a busted LCD, and I've been fighting with its VGA-out port (which is overly fond of acting as a second display instead of mirroring) and a video switch connected to my server's cheapo monitor to keep using it. It was already accessing shared di

  • RealVNC (Score:2, Informative)

    by theobscurest ( 613689 )

    I use RealVNC and find it works great for me as a system administrator. I don't have any headless clients, but it has other uses..

    My primary domain server lost the keyboard port a while back, but I was able to get it working again via the mouse port, obviously losing the mouse. So instead, I use RealVNC to work on this server..

    Also somewhat unrelated, one of my other domain servers is located about an hour's drive away at another site, and I have found it extremely useful to be able to login remotely

  • Depending on what version of windows you have:

    XP - has native terminal services for a SINGLE user console access

    2000 Pro, NT, 9x - you can use VNC for SINGLE user console access

    2000 or 2003 server - has native terminal services for MULTI user..

    NT - Get the Terminal server edition ( though you cant buy that now from Microsoft.. )

    Can add Citrix on top any of the server editions and run ICA client....

    Note this does NOT take into account any of the licensing issues with any of those choices....
  • Is this story a troll?

Slashdot Top Deals

As long as we're going to reinvent the wheel again, we might as well try making it round this time. - Mike Dennison

Close