Cygwin's XFree86 4.2.0 on Windows XP 358
stock writes: "A interesting and important piece of software on the win32 platform for me has always been X11 server software like
Hummingbird's Exceed, or
Startnet's Xwin32 Professional.
Today i glanced at cygwin's site and found that a complete
XFree86 4.2.0 for Windows XP
can be downloaded now! It shouldn't be hard for newcomers as it features a
setup.exe . The package comes free and is basicly licensed as X style licensed software which runs on cygwin32 which has a GPL license." Looks like this has been out since May -- can anyone who's been using it since then comment on how well it works? Update: 07/07 17:12 GMT by T : haroldhunt (project leader for Cygwin/XFree86) wrote to clarify: "Cygwin/XFree86 runs on all recent consumer and business versions of Windows; as of 2002-05-12 those versions are specifically Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Me, Windows NT 4.0, Windows 2000, and Windows XP."
I use it on win2k (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I use it on win2k (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure X11 is pretty stable... but so is Exceed. And for all the folks that are claiming that "X11 is more stable" --- let me tell you, Exceed has never crashed on me, while X11 has crashed numerous times. Plus, I don't care what you say, running a native Windows app is theoretically mucho faster than running X11 through that Cygwin1.dll POSIX patch. Here is an example... Open up NT cmd and type 'dir'. It's instant, right? Now open up bash and type 'ls'.... it's slow as a mofo compared to the former!
Exceed comes with a whole bunch of tools along with it as well... the nice part about it is that I can keep multiple sessions with their own individual settings in
How many of you... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How many of you... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How many of you... (Score:2)
Compare with XWin32, please! (Score:2, Interesting)
No matter what, it still feels weird to be doing X stuff on my Win2K desktop. =)
Re:Compare with XWin32, please! (Score:2)
Re:Compare with XWin32, please! (Score:2, Informative)
Cygwin/XFree86 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Cygwin/XFree86 (Score:2)
Works well... (Score:5, Informative)
So yes... I would definitely recommend it. The disadvantage over something like Exceed, though, is that it needs its own window - you can't have the X windows alongside the Windows windows (if you see what I mean). And you can't resize it either, you have to choose the dimensions on startup. But you can also use it fullscreen, and because it uses DirectDraw, it's nice and fast.
Re:Works well... (Score:2)
i.e. it cannot be rootless.
Yes, this is the problem (Score:2)
When Xfree/cygwin has rootless mode, I'll be using it, instead.
Incidentally, I've been using cygwin for a long time, and I was ecstatic when xfree binaries became available. Now I can run xterms on windows, which are dramatically superior to windows console windows in every way. First of all, they are WAY faster, and second, you can make them transparent (hardware alpha) with glass2k (or similar.) You cannot do this with a win32 console window. But really, a non-rootless xfree is a joke on windows.
GDI support would be a plus, too. :P
Re:Yes, this is the problem (Score:3, Funny)
I think I'll just complain. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Works perfectly. Killer app. (Score:5, Interesting)
It works splendidly. Unlike with Hummingbird & Co, you get the exact same feel as regular Xfree with regards to font and small behaviour differences - which is good, since GNOME and KDE is targeted there.
It has some funcitonality lacking (imo - the developers seem to regard this as not being their problem): Cut and paste between X and Windows does not work (although I once saw rumors of an experimental daemon to fix this). Non-US keyboard setups must be loaded manually with xmodmap (while imo, Xfree for Windows should support xkbdb stuff).
In other aspects, it's great! Scroll wheel stuff works perfectly, graphics are fast and stable (better than a recent version of Hummingbird Exceed I tested), etc.
Oh, one more drawback - there seems to be a hard coded limit to the window size that prevents me from letting the X desktop span two windows monitors in multihead setup. This should be easy to fix if one feels inclined, though, I expect.
Otherwise, the product is brilliant. Now I can roll out Linux/FreeBSD desktops cheaply and easily, and make the switch from Windows to GNOME/KDE in small steps for my customers. The killer right now is letting them use Mozilla and Evolution through X from a server located outside the firewall: very secure and virusless (and cheap!) Attachments and saved files are available through a samba share. Oh, and let the server run IMAP (to Evolution) and webmail (ssl) from the outside. People get the same folders abroad and at the office.
I'm telling you, the revolution is here.
-- Daniel, www.copyleft.no
Re:Works perfectly. Killer app. (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless the X display is used *only* for the specified apps and users are very conscious of what's going on, you're not gaining security much in principle. It's true, however, that most generic attacks won't affect the secure boxes; some more effort by the attacker would be required.
Re:Works perfectly. Killer app. (Score:2)
Now, personally I'd just drop a Linux box on their desks and tell them to cope, but that's just me
Re:Works perfectly. Killer app. (Score:2)
Seems like a bad idea.
Re:Works perfectly. Killer app. (Score:5, Informative)
You might want to be careful with this box that is outside the firewall. If someone can get into it, they can launch applications like xkey [attrition.org] This will enable someone to do keyboard monitoring of anyone who's running an X application. Combine that with "netstat -anA inet | grep ESTAB" and you can easily determine some good IP addresses to target. What I'd be concerned about is someone sniffing my keystrokes in my mozilla sessions, getting by all the wonderful SSL encryption!
One way to combat this would be to use X forwarding through ssh as the X11 transport. That way you have to have access to the user's ~/.Xauthority file, which is typically set readonly for that particular user. Which means any local root exploits would grant someone access to all of your customer's keystrokes.
Something else you might want to look into is NSA's SELinux [nsa.gov]. I don't know much about it, but it seems like you could take advantage of the higher granularity of access controls to limit someone (other than the rightful user) getting access to ~/.Xauthority. Even root wouldn't be able to get access.
Anyway, that's a very cool idea you have. Just be careful.
Re:Works perfectly. Killer app. (Score:2)
Certainly some other kernel can do things like mount the filesystem. But I think that would be tricky to accomplish remotely using SELinux. Like I said, I don't know much about SELinux, but I'm pretty sure that root is *not* god in that environment. But reading the actual docs on SELinux would probably confirm or deny this.
Re:Works perfectly. Killer app. (Score:2)
I think the _question_ he was answering was: "can anyone who's been using it since then comment on how well it works?". He wasn't spontaneously bitching. And it seems like you _are_ taking the attitude that it is not your problem. Perhaps rightfully so.
I have a busy life, and try to take the extra time to help others as well. I definitely know what its like to feel under appreciated. However, seeing as how your work just got a post on Slashdot, and with most (if not all) people complimenting your work, I really don't see as how you can complain that much.
Maybe its time to take a weekend off and go somewhere with your girlfriend. Does wonders for me.
Re:Works perfectly. Killer app. (Score:2)
I just love writing free software, it is so appreciated.
---snip
Considering his choice of subject line, I would suspect he appreciates what you did quite a bit.
Critiquing(sp?) from a user perspective, I think both his points (cut and paste not integrated, limits on window sizes in certain situations) would be useful to know for someone comparing this to one of the commercial options.
I really hope you do not consider it "lack of appreciation" any time someone provides positive feedback on the state of one of your apps.
works fine (Score:4, Informative)
I'm running it with a port of windowmaker in fullscreen mode and it looks great. However, the thrill of running xcalc and xclock on windows xp wears off quickly
Another issue I found is that it is not possible to cut and paste between X apps and windows apps. So if you are surfing using mozilla or IE and want to paste some command from a howto into your xterm, you have a problem. You can paste into a bash terminal (i.e. outside X).
The cygwin installation is pretty smooth (lots of great stuff other than X too). However you do need to set a path to
Re:works fine (Score:3, Informative)
If I'm reading this right, you probably want to try xwinclip [cygwin.com].
Re:works fine (Score:2)
Old news ? (Score:4, Informative)
I used the old version for a couple of times on W2K, seemed to work quite well.
Er... (Score:2, Insightful)
It didn't run rootless as of the last time I checked, which is quite a limitation. Has this changed? Hummingbird and Starnet don't have anything to worry about until then.
ScreenShot! (Score:2)
I have a small windows PC for experimentation that I run a Citrix Server on...
I have screenshot of the new X11 (WindowMaker)running on Cygwin accessed remotely throught the Linux ICA client on WindowMaker!
Go here: http://cguru.ma.cx/cygwin.png [cguru.ma.cx]
Ernest Question, no troll. (Score:2)
Perhaps my problem is that I have never fully utilized X's capabilities. For me it is just a graphical front end. What am I missing?
Re:Ernest Question, no troll. (Score:2)
Once it gets rootless mode, it will be useful for integrating X and Windows apps on the desktop, which is a great transitional state between people running all-Windows, and people running all-Unix on the desktop.
In other words, it's one more step toward world domination! :-)
Re:Ernest Question, no troll. (Score:2)
Thanks. (Score:2)
Clients are superb (tho server needs some work) (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, though, what I use are Xclients compiled against the XFree86 libraries. The XFree86 X server doesn't yet have a useable multiple-window mode -- that is, one in which XP is your window manager and each program appears in a separate Windows window. <FLAMESUIT>Since what I want is the superior windows UI with the superior GNU utilities power, the separate window mode is pretty essential. Thus I still use eXceed as my Xserver. </FLAMESUIT>
Work on this capability is proceeding; it is, in fact, the top item on the Cygwin/XFree TODO list [cygwin.com]:
By the way, if you are setting up Cygwin for the first time, I highly recommend following the procedures outlined at (which largely consists of instructions for ssh/sshd with Cygwin, but has many other excellent setup tips).Re:Clients are superb (tho server needs some work) (Score:2)
With everything in one big X window, I *have* to load an X window manager and have to keep all of my X apps contained in that one window. It makes it a little awkward if I need to be working between a Windows app and an X app, because I'm having to swap out of the X system entirely to go back to a Windows app. It's just a little cumbersome. I love the way Exceed is able to do this: every X app appears seamlessly like any other Windows app. And it's fast.
Plus, it's sometimes interesting to still use a window manager or shell in this mode. You get the benefits of having X windows float around a Win32 desktop, in addition to having these windows all managed by a different window manager. It's kind of cool having your Gnome panel, desktop icons, etc., floating on your Win32 desktop alongside your Explorer bar and Explorer desktop icons.
Yeah.. (Score:2)
Xfree can't do that.
Wow, Promote unnecessary XP upgrades, willya? (Score:5, Informative)
Is this a case of unconcious shilling for the Microsoft version upgrade treadmill? I hope so.
Re:Wow, Promote unnecessary XP upgrades, willya? (Score:3, Informative)
What page are you reading? (Score:2)
Re:Wow, Promote unnecessary XP upgrades, willya? (Score:2)
you're reading into it the assumption that it wasn't compatible with previous versions of Windows. This is a compatibility alert, stating that XFree86 now works with something that it had troubles running on before.
The fact that it works on Win98 et al is not news...that support has been around for a long time. Therefor, the
Runs Great!!! Fonts Look better in Win32 X (Score:3, Informative)
I get by day to day with Kmail [kde.org], GnuCash [gnucash.org], Red-Carpet [ximian.com] and a few other miscellaneous apps that I run over the in-house LAN.
As the subject says I noticed that programs use the same fonts whether I run the program on the Mandrake box locally or over the network, however when I run the progs over the network to the Windows machine all the fonts look nice....??!?!? Is that a feature? I think most the programs just plain look nicer in the Win32 port... maybe I'm delusional...... anything's possible.
Re:Runs Great!!! Fonts Look better in Win32 X (Score:2, Informative)
you can install ttf for your *nix machines if you want.
Experiences with Cygwin/XFree86 (Score:5, Informative)
i run the latest server in the server test series [cygwin.com]. they recently added -nodecoration, which makes the x server use as much of your screen as possible, without any title bar or borders. My xdmcp command line, setup as a shortcut on my win2k desktop, looks like this:
C:\cygwin\usr\X11R6\bin\XWin.exe -screen 0 1600x1200 -from spandex -query lycra -once -emulate3buttons -nowinkill -nounixkill -nodecoration -fp "tcp/lycra:7100"
The -fp option is for a font server, so cygwin/xfree86 will get the necessary fonts from the machine you tell it.
HTH
Now some REAL news would be... (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously, the Wine and Cygwin teams need to cooperate much much more. Both share a very important interface: the Win32 API. Since Cygwin uses it and Wine "makes" it, I see great potential for cross-project development here.
This would be analogous to bochs [sourceforge.net] running bochs [sourceforge.net]. Actually, it would be really funny if they optimized the heck out of it, so that running Cygwin/XFree86 is faster on Wine than Windows...
Re:Now some REAL news would be... (Score:2)
Re:Now some REAL news would be... (Score:2)
Well, not the speed. Neither WINE nor Cygwin are emulators; they are APIs. So you don't have the speed hit of emulation.
With the Mozilla project, the Windows binary sometimes runs faster under WINE on Linux than the native Linux binary does.
Re:Now some REAL news would be... (Score:2)
Bottom line of the discussion was, I believe, that Cygwin + WINE is an unsupported configuration (at least on the Cygwin list). If you're curious, check the archives -- I could be mistaken.
BTW - It's no surprise that Cygwin might be faster on WINE (I heard it could be)... Cygwin tries to do threads and processes the same was as on UNIX, which is expensive on WIN32 (especially on Win9x but still true on NT as well). It would be faster to map all that stuff back to native UNIX, than emulate it in Win32 land...
Very slow (benchmarks) (Score:5, Informative)
I benchmarked cygwin, exceed (7.1), omni-X and xwin32. cygwin was by far the slowest, around 10 times slower than exceed for many basic X11 operations. Exceed was about two times faster than omni-X and xwin32.
Exceed is extremely expensive however (a cheap second PC plus KVM switch, dedicated running Linux just as an X-terminal might be cheaper than buying an exceed licence). For most normal text-based remote access, cygwin+xfree will do. For graphically oriented programs (such as running KDE remotely) you'll want something else however.
Re:Very slow (benchmarks) (Score:3, Informative)
You may want to check out the new `-clipupdates num_boxes' parameter, which gathers together num_boxes or more regions into a GDI clipping region and then does one bit block transfer to the screen, rather than one bit block transfer per damaged region. I'm guessing that `-clipupdates 10' or `-clipupdates 50' would give a good return on the overhead that is involved in creating a GDI clipping region.
Harold
Re:Very slow (benchmarks) (Score:2)
Re:Very slow (benchmarks) (Score:2)
oh well (Score:2)
This will help bring that day closer. If this will work through putty, I'll finally be able to "show" people I work what I'm talking about as I sigh at the M$ stupidity of the day. How nice it will be to be able to use, on occasion, my computers at home through a graphical interface. I don't expect lightening response over a gimped up cable modem, but funciton is function.
Will this work the other way? If I get sshd on Win32, will I be able to get at my work from home? I'm neither willing nor able to install the junky windows based clients for remote computer use that the company provides. It's not that I want to do piles of work at home, especially with the horrid tools I have to use. Being able to get at company data from home can mean I stay home when the unexpected happens at my plant. It also means a faster and more reliable response. You would think the company wants that kind of thing, but they have a hard enough time making it so that you can get at your data while you are actually there.
"gotta fly."
RedHat Thin Client Edition? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I were RedHat, I would make RedHat "Thin Client Edition" out of it. Modify the RedHat install to accept connections and display a X login, or at least have that option during install. I know I have been able to do that before, but all the protocol and service names slip my mind right now.
Once that is in place, marketing can begin. Migrate to centralized (Linux) application management without betting the farm. I know you can easily turn most PC's into X-Terminals, but most people would be more comfortable starting with a Windows Client version first. Offering OpenOffice and Mozilla to "clients" would be able to cover 90% of what low end user needs to do. They can even keep Outlook/Exchange running on their desktop if they don't want to pull the plug on that yet, which is a common reason for staying with windows on the desktop.
If they were to package and market this correctly, it could be the first step in moving into the desktop realm.
-Pete
Cygwin rxvt (Score:2, Informative)
Using rxvt in this way really flies and I don't miss X at all. In fact, this method has brought me back to command line alternatives that are quite a lot better in most cases (OK, I wouldn't want a terminal version of the Gimp but for most things ...)
linux running win4lin running cygin (Score:2, Funny)
Two very weird problems (Score:2)
Another oddity is that ever since I followed these directions [tech.erdelynet] to set up sshd on Win32, my window manager (fluxbox) won't start from the startxwin.sh script -- it just prints "Pure virtual function called" and exits. However, I can start the wm manually, and all is well from then on. I haven't taken the time to debug this either; it could be related to having sshd running (why?) or to some change made by Erdely's fix-perms.sh script. Or perhaps the changes Erdely recommends for /etc/passwd and /etc/group?
Btw, I use the same window manager on Cygwin/XFree86 that I do on Linux/XFree86 -- fluxbox 0.1.9, which is a nice extension of blackbox 0.61.1 with a number of nice features such as user-customization of the title bar button positioning (essential, as blackbox insists on putting the Close button right next to the Maximize button, which is stupid) and tabbed windows (which ought to be an WM feature, not an app feature).
3d Support? (Score:2)
Re:3d Support? (Score:2)
However, i believe that since i was doing this, great strides have been made by the Cygwin guys in the area of GLX etc. and it's very likely that 3D does work.
I have long since switched to Linux/OS X for any 'real' work i do, so couldn't say for sure.
Works great on Win2K (Score:2)
XFree86 for Win32 in general isn't terribly stable yet, but it works pretty good. It only runs in a window, so it doesn't really integrate seemlessly with the Windows GUI the way eXceed in passive mode does (where each client window can pop up separately using your Windows "window manager").
We have eXceed 3D (GLX), but I haven't gotten it to work well. It is dirt slow running the GL Xscreensaver hacks, but I probably need to recompile using the eXceed libs if I can figure out how to do that... I haven't had a lot of luck running GLX apps over the network either, probably because most of my GL apps are statically linked or something :/ .
My favourite solution for accessing UNIX desktops from a PC remains VNC [tightvnc.org], though.
Cygwin is just about mature enough to make Win32 a viable *NIX platform. The biggest thing missing is just decent file access (it's currently very, very slow, because they have to open every file in a directory just to get check for hidden UNIX-style attributes I guess.) Once this is handled better, as well as maybe some security issues, you'll pretty much have a decent POSIX environment.
Let's hope Wine does a good job catching up from the other end! ;)
Why Not VNC and tightVNC? (Score:2, Insightful)
Compatibility (Score:2)
Re:Compatibility (Score:2)
works quite well (Score:2)
It also worked fine for tunnelling X apps through ssh in the normal manner.
My main gripe is the fiddlyness of the keyboard - I end up having to manually xmodmap stuff into shape (I'm in Ireland, we tend to use UK keyboards rather than USA ones)
Other free choices? (Score:2)
The only other one i've been able to find is the GPLed WeirdX [jcraft.com], which has a usable but slightly buggy rootless mode (where you use Windows as your window manager). I've been pretty happy using it to run my linux boxes (mostly xterm), and I could run some things (like xscreensaver) locally using U/WIN [att.com]...
--
Benjamin Coates
Just a little foolish? (Score:2)
In short, this is an interesting application and I'm sure it could be used well in a few situations, but ultimately it isn't all that useful.
Re:Just a little foolish? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Just a little foolish? (Score:2)
Re:Just a little foolish? (Score:2)
Re:Just a little foolish? (Score:2)
No. It is an enviroment. You can operate, compile, modify local applications and daemons as well.
Re:Just a little foolish? (Score:2)
So in other words it can be used as a thin client solution, and thin client applications are becoming really popular. The "network computer" never went anywhere, but it's really common to see Windows machines used as pseudo-thin clients, that run some applications on their own and connect to a central server for others. This lets you use a Unix server for that, which many people would prefer.
Re:Just a little foolish? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Just a little foolish? (Score:2)
This is NOT running Linux on top of Windows. This is setting up all of your favorite GNU tools and running them from the command line on Windows. It's a great help for people who need to be in Windows for one reason or another - think of it as a reverse WINE.
I also dispute the concept that Windows has more programs than Linux! Sure, Windows has more GUI word processors and games, but it does NOT have more technologically oriented programs like bash,zsh, emacs, gcc, postfix, etc. etc.,and of course all those windows programs cost, and come without source code.
Additionally, the tools here are NOT slower than Windows tools, simply beacuse fast command line tools that UNIX features, unencumbered by the wonderful Microsoft MFC.
No, cygwin is a godsend for people who miss having a powerful command shell on their computer, complete with tools like sed and awk.
I've even heard tales that cygwin is heavily used by programmers at Microsoft.
Post from the project leader (Score:5, Informative)
Current features we are working on include:
Harold
Xfree on Xp (Score:3, Interesting)
Since cygwin's setup program is now idiot proof its about 6 clicks and a bunch downloading later and BAM! X on Xp. Just make a shortcut to the startwinx.bat file in the /usr/X.../bin/ dir and you then become |golden boy|. Ofcourse blast out the line in starwinx.bat that kicks of tvm and get a real window manager ( as if you care, but fvwm is my choice ).
For performance sake I keep to just a simple fvwm2 setup. Not to say Xp is great but I don't see a need to duplicate half of the fancy stuff ( email notifiers, clocks, start menus, yada^3 ) by running KDE or something more ontop of your current Xp rig.
To be honest I think the work the cygwin folks are doing is the most complete solution now for your PC. You now get the power and devel environ of Nix and the hardware compatibility and other features of windows. No more dual boot. No more kernel recompiles just to get a USB flash card reader working. Just point scripts to /cygdrive/d where d is drive letter that windows assigned to your hardware.
Only complaint is the file naming problems that occur when your strike off a DOS program with files as arguments. But not a huge issue. ( Compiling Tcl/Tk scripts using the Windows version of tclpro tools, chokes on the file names ). Other than that perfect!
If you are truly sick... Cygwin does come with glut and glu. I'd like to see someone hack something like q3 for linux inside a cygwin session running on Xp or 2000 or whatever illegal bangkok version of the Microsoft OS your are running.
simpler install needed (Score:2)
I think what XFree86 really needs to become mainstream on Windows is a simpler install process and a smaller installation. There really isn't any reason why an X server install should be more than a couple of megabytes. Even better would be a simple drag-and-drop install: you drag over a directory containing the server, and you can double click on the server to start it.
Both the Mac and the Windows version also would benefit from GDI calls. They are usably fast without it (on the Mac, the X11 rendering hack seems actually faster than OSX's Quartz engine), but window redrawing just doesn't look right with the off-screen rendering.
Bah, I still can't get it to install! (Score:2)
Notes, install, 'Doze versions, update question (Score:2)
As a Linux admin who's managing a bunch of 'Doze boxes as well, one of my first steps was to put Cygwin on all Windows desktops, along with TightVNC. This includes Win98, WinNT40WS, Win2K, Win2KS, and WinXP. This provides a local toolset I'm familiar with, OpenSSH (including sshd), and remote X capabilities. For admin needs, it's a godsend.
Installation of Cygwin itself is largely painless (though the download for the full install is time consuming, and space-consuming on smaller systems). I've had far better luck installing XF86 by hand according to the instructions in the INSTALL file. Using the scripted install tends to break in different ways on different platforms, YMMV.
The X11 server itself is pretty decent. Fullscreen is nice. My one gripe is that the <alt><tab> key combination remains stolen by MS Windows for application cycling. I prefer to use this to circulate windows under WindowMaker. Hummingbird and/or Reflection have a setting to bind this to the X server.
Agree that having a rootless mode would be useful. Among other things, it could help start migration toward a Linux desktop by exporting Linux apps to Cygwin.
I also like the suggestion someone made here to support exporting onto a Samba share, as this would be a good way to make Cygwin globally available.
Question: how does one update an existing Cygwin install? It would be nice (and in the case of ssh, damned necessary) to be able to grab the latest update packages on an occasional basis.
Remote Access is nice -- but what about ..... (Score:5, Interesting)
The main purpose of Cygwin is to run Posix apps under Windows. And if XFree under Windows is now solid (wasn't, last time I looked, but that was a couple years ago), then we now have all kinds of interesting possibilities for migrating Linux apps to the Windows platform. In particular, it'd be nice to be replace the Windows shell and desktop with one of the many open-source equivalents.
There are, of course, non-Posix Windows shell replacements. But I've never liked any of them as much as I've liked the best Linux desktops: KDE, GNOME, Enlightenment. Add your own favorite to the list.
But will it run on a TCPA-equipped ThinkPad?!?!? (Score:2)
I've been using this for months (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, its made me less keen to trash the Windows install on the only Windows machine left in my house, since it is now quite functional with Cygwin/XFree86.
Now, how do i replace Windows explorer etc. with XFree86 as the only available interface to my Windows machine?
One advantage of VNC for this purpose (Score:2)
at work for over a month now to connect to my
local Linux production box. Prior to this I was
using VNC to achieve the same thing.
The one thing I miss is being able to close my
VNC client window, shut my desktop machine down
overnight, then come in the next day, power up my
desktop, reconnect to my VNC X session and have
my existing session waiting for me.
I gather X(Free86) can't do this, as by
definition the server is running on my desktop
machine, so as soon as I log out or power down
my desktop machine, my session's gone.
Is there any way to do this with XFree86/Cygwin?
Use Cygwin all the time at work (Score:2)
A little while back I took a course in scientific computing and put together some instructions for setting up cyginw/X windows on Win32. It's got screen shots and links to other resources. Check out [geocities.com]
http://www.geocities.com/jaaronfarr/cygwin.html
Re:How well it works (Score:2, Informative)
Re:How well it works (Score:3, Interesting)
As for UNI*X features not yet available in Cygwin - you mean Gnome ported to win32, do you? At least that what failed the compilation Sawfish and others for me.
Have anyone heard about porting Gnome to win32? How about KDE? I can use Gnome or KDE through X11 net, but how about the case of temporary standalone box? Such win32 port would be a very nice feature then.
Re:How well it works (Score:2, Informative)
No, I do not mean GNOME. Signals are tricky, for one. Try compiling, say, AOLServer and see how far you'd get.
Generally speaking, Cygwin is a very nice thing and for most of a [true] power user requirements that wants to have UN*X stuff under his finger tips but for various reasons (e.g. company policy, etc.) cannot go 100% UN*X it is there. I use it every day and run a whole bunch of things under it (including Postgres *and* an MSVS-compiled AOLServer).
Having Cygwin Xserver is a nice thing, true. I have sort of used it for amusement factor as well as running GNUPlot on it. Running remote ups off some other machine is also an option, but since I've got none on my corporate network, I don't need that. And if I had a need and access -- I'd be running Attachmate's X, provided by the Co.
FWIW, if you go to Cygwin page though, you'll see that KDE (1.x) and GNOME (1.x) are on the list of projects being worked on. But I would not be using those, as even twm and wmaker are a bit slow, let alone these beasts.
Re:How well it works (Score:2)
I've not tried it on anything other than Win2K, but it runs fairly well on that. I have it installed on my machines at work so that I can ssh into one of our Linux servers and work on the Linux side of the software that I'm writing (Win32 clients, but Linux on the server since putting a Windows box directly on the Internet is a Bad Idea). I've run emacs, DDD, and Konqueror over the SSH connection without any issues.
Answer (Score:2)
That's like saying a piece of Linux software is "for Mandrake 8.2".
No, it's like saying a piece of Linux software is "for Linux Standard Base x.xx". Microsoft introduces improvements to its standard libraries in every OS revision, and sometimes bug fixes break apps that had depended on buggy behavior.
The announcement was that Cygwin XFree86 had been 1. successfully ported to Windows XP, and 2. upgraded to XFree 4.2.0.
Re:Why "for XP"? (Score:2)
At least the posters aren't the only ones not reading the story first.
Re:Only for Windows XP? (Score:2)
I said that too, until I tried XP.
Sure, it's a bit candy coated. IT also has a lot of UI design that makes WAY MORE sense.
It has built in terminal services for administration.
It works better with my laptop. Better with removable devices.
It doesn't make me reboot all the time.
It has ClearType. That is the primary reason I upgraded.
Now.. of course, Office.
Except.. Office XP runs smoother and faster than 2000
Re:Only for Windows XP? (Score:2)
Re:Only for Windows XP? (Score:2)
Works just fine to access all my 2K Server machines, and since i hacked rdesktop to use multiple ports, i can directly access multiple RDP servers behind my firewall. (different ports on the firewall forwarded to each servers' port 3389)
The Windows TS Client can seemingly only use port 3389, which limits its usefulness in this particular scenario. You can TS to one machine, then TS to another, but that can be a bit of a pain in the ass.
Certainly, the Open Source solution makes life much easier for me.
Re:Only for Windows XP? (Score:2)
Of course, you could always use the windows key for that. Anyway, in my preferred XP mode I have two rows at the bottom - one with small quick launch icons and one for the task bar proper.
If you do this the start button rises up away from the bottom corner.
Michael
Re:Only for Windows XP? (Score:2)
Yeah. (Score:2)
The absolute last thing MS wants is for a university to be able to buy a handful of Windows servers to put in the back room and manage centrally while the labs go on using X terminals.
That doesn't force them into investing heavily in MS infrastructure.. so what's the point.
Re:Yeah. (Score:2)
RDESKTOP Is an RDP client, not an RDP -> X translator.
Yes, there are citrix clients, but again, that's not an RDP -> X translator.
Obviously (Score:2)
A cluster of NT servers in the server room along with your unix servers, etc, and a bunch of remote X stations would be just fine, and much easier to administer than 1000 workstations.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Debian, where art thou? (Score:2, Informative)
- RustyTaco
Re:I'ev tried it. (Score:2)
Ever run a Windows desktop over a remote connection? That is not exactly a fun proposition either.
KDE works well enough locally - as does Windows.Neither is really in it's element when run remotely.
Re:I'ev tried it. (Score:2)
At least here if you want to you can fix it yourself. you have the source code; and permission to fix it if you want to.
this is compared to most MS products where you get can also sometimes get Buggy and slow programs, but even if you know who is to blame (all fingers pointing at the same destination), you cant get them to fix it
MS and GPL (Score:2)
Their official concern is the "viral nature" of GPL, how it supposedly contaminates any proprietary software it touches with the free-as-in-beer virus. A bigger concern is probably open-source software that replaces their products -- Samba being a case in point.
Of course, their not against such software because it competes! That's not the American Way! ;)