A Network Attached Windows Box? 114
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?"
VNC? (Score:5, Informative)
while
VNC is Virtual Network Computing
Re:VNC? (Score:3, Informative)
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)
Re:VNC? (Score:2)
Terminal Services (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Remove the "default gateway" from its IP configuration to keep it f
Re:Terminal Services (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Terminal Services (Score:2)
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.
Re:Terminal Services (Score:2)
.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
Re:Terminal Services (Score:2)
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
Re:Terminal Services (Score:2)
Re:Terminal Services (Score:2)
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
Re:Terminal Services (Score:2)
--Mike--
Re:Terminal Services (Score:2)
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)
Re:Terminal Services (Score:2)
Or you could just install tightVNC and dump Terminal Services altogether. As a bonus your machine can be accessible by virtually any other platform.
Re:Terminal Services (Score:2)
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:2, Interesting)
I personally hate xp's reomte desktop, since my laptop's screen res is about 500 pixels wider, and 80 taller than my desktops, so when I remote desktop to my laptop, my icon placement gets re-adjusted for the screen space, and it remembers the changes when I log off remote desktop, and
Re:Terminal Services (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Terminal Services (Score:2)
VNC is encrypted (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:VNC is encrypted (Score:1)
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
Re:VNC is encrypted (Score:2)
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:
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)
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
Re:VNC is encrypted (Score:2)
I guess this is what one gets when one used to use XP Home...
Re:VNC is encrypted (Score:2)
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
Re:VNC is encrypted (Score:2)
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)
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
Re:VNC is encrypted (Score:2)
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.
Re:Terminal Services (Score:2)
Except RDP was never meant to be used over the Internet. It is vulnerable to a Man-in-the-Middle attack.
Re:Terminal Services (Score:2)
Would you mind pointing me to proof of this statement?
Re:Terminal Services (Score:1)
Am I missing something? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:1)
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:1)
But like I said, I'm no expert, or even a newbie. So please inform me.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:1)
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:1)
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:2)
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:2)
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:2)
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)
Re:Remote Desktop (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Remote Desktop (Score:2)
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.
Re:Remote Desktop (Score:2)
I stand corrected.
you need Citrix (Score:4, Informative)
Re:you need Citrix (Score:2)
Re:you need Citrix (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:you need Citrix (Score:2)
VPC (Score:3, Informative)
Re:VPC (Score:2)
VPC is useless (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:An Alternative to Windows services (Score:2)
Re:An Alternative to Windows services (Score:1)
Re:An Alternative to Windows services (Score:2)
Dear Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Dear Slashdot (Score:2)
A Network Attached Windows Box? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A Network Attached Windows Box? (Score:1, Redundant)
Slashdot over-sensationalizes problems with Windows boxes. I wouldn't worry too much about the parent post.
XP Pro (not home)....Do it all the time (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:XP Pro (not home)....Do it all the time (Score:1)
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.
Re:XP Pro (not home)....Do it all the time (Score:1)
p
Re:XP Pro (not home)....Do it all the time (Score:1)
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
Re:XP Pro (not home)....Do it all the time (Score:2)
A did this for a while (Score:1)
Some options: (Score:5, Informative)
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.
How about vmware? (Score:1)
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
EXTREMELY Interested (Score:2)
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
Re:EXTREMELY Interested (Score:2)
Re:EXTREMELY Interested (Score:2)
Tarantella does all this (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Citrix does all this too (Score:2)
Re:Citrix does all this too (Score:2)
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
What is the purpose of Citrix, Tarantella, pcAnywh (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re:What is the purpose of Citrix, Tarantella, pcAn (Score:2)
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
Re:What is the purpose of Citrix, Tarantella, pcAn (Score: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.
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
Re:What is the purpose of Citrix, Tarantella, pcAn (Score:2)
Re:Gigabit per second ethernet? (Score:2)
Use rdesktop (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Use rdesktop (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:We have such a setup (Score:2)
Terminal Services Remote Admin mode comes with Windows 2000/2003/SBS Server, but is limited to 2 simultaneous connections. Term
Joe Q Slashdot's windows knowledge (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:We have such a setup (Score:1)
My work setup (Score:2)
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
Why not use DMX? (Score:2, Informative)
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...
...but don't answer yet... just look what else you get...
http://dmx.sourceforge.net/
Dynamic MAXSCREENS [mail-archive.com]
Regards,
TheS
VNC (Score:2)
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
Yep, I have seen that! (Score:2)
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
Mod Story: -1 Troll (Score:1, Troll)
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.
headless doze (Score:1)
d'oh! (Score:2)
RealVNC (Score:2, Informative)
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
Rdesktop or VNC or ICA.... (Score:2)
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....
I must be missing something... (Score:2)
Re:Just use VMware or Wine! (Score:3)