MSGID: 2:240/12 679949a2
TZUTC: 0200
REPLY: 2284.fido_linux@1:135/115 2ca982a4
CHRS: LATIN-1 2
TID: hpt/fbsd 1.9 2021-12-02
Hello Dan!

07 Jun 25 08:50, Dan Clough wrote to Gerrit Kuehn:

 GK>> Do you want persistent logins? Do you want access to the physical X
 GK>> display (:0), virtual ones, or both? Looking for the client or the
 GK>> server end (or both)?

 DC> Don't even know enough about it to answer the first two questions...  

There is a difference if you want to share your physical display, i.e., the
session that is displayed on the monitor connected to the server, or if you
want a "virtual" session that is running on the server with no monitor
hardware attached. Some software can do one, some the other, some both.

Which software you want depends on what you want to achieve: using the
physical display remotely is more or less required if you want to give users
in front of the machine remote help, i.e., see their screens, move their
mouse, type for them.
OTOH, running virtual session enables you to hook up several remote users to a
server, everyone running their own session. This way, you could, for example,
use a more powerful server to run several (virtual) desktop environment
sessions, each of these being displayed by a less powerful thin client.

Having "persistent" logins means that your virtual session (with all software
running) is not automatically terminated when your client disconnects.
Instead, it is waiting on the server until your client reconnects (which could
be days later).
If you are familiar with tools like "screen" or "tmux" on the commandline (or
in xterm): persistent virtual X sessions are pretty much the same concept,
just using X sessions (including your full desktop if you like) instead of a
textmode terminal.

 GK>> If VNC and RDP above are not a requirement (but merely examples): I 
 GK>> am using x2go for a couple of years now (and try to avoid the other 
 GK>> two, if possible).

 DC> I'm assuming you avoid VNC/RDP for security reasons...

Well, depends on the actual setup and software you use, I guess. I probably
would not recommend the original VNC ("realvnc") to anyone these days.
TightVNC or TigerVNC usually perform better, provide more features and better
security.
RDP, on the other hand, was invented by MS. At least for me, especially the
server part always felt tedious to set up and clumsy to operate. This is
probably caused by its "alien" (from *ix-perspective) origin. Admittedly, I
have not used it for quite some time, maybe it improved meanwhile. I am using
it on *ix systems as a client (remmina being my default client there) when I
have to talk to MS servers. However, I would avoid the server on *ix systems
if I have other choices.

 DC>  I've added x2go to my list of candidates, and it looks pretty good.  

I have used x2go in various scenarios over the last years, usually running the
server on Linux machines to be able to operate their software from Windows,
MacOS, *BSD oder other Linux boxes. It is reasonably fast, tunnels over ssh by
default, supports using SSH key authentication and SSH jump hosts (so you do
not have to mess with firewall rules and port forwarding if you already have
an ssh port open), offers session management, persistance, access to the
physical X display. On top of that, it is OpenSource and easy to set up, so
for me there is not much more to ask for.
You have to take care a bit when using "fancy" desktop environments that come
with compositors, transparency and stuff like that. My default desktop is
xfce, x2go usually works fine with it.


Regards,
Gerrit

...  5:27PM  up 182 days, 23:34, 10 users, load averages: 0.59, 0.68, 0.71

--- msged/fbsd 6.3 2021-12-02
 * Origin: Dry thoughts for the tenant (2:240/12)
SEEN-BY: 1/120 18/0 200 19/10 50/22 104/119 105/81 106/201 114/10
SEEN-BY: 116/116 120/616 123/0 25 126 180 525 755 3001 3002 128/187
SEEN-BY: 129/14 305 135/115 153/757 7001 7715 154/10 30 50 110 700
SEEN-BY: 218/700 840 220/6 20 30 90 221/1 6 360 222/2 226/18 30 44
SEEN-BY: 226/50 227/114 229/110 111 114 206 275 300 310 317 400 426
SEEN-BY: 229/428 470 550 616 664 700 705 240/12 1120 1634 8001 8002
SEEN-BY: 240/8005 8050 250/1 266/512 275/1000 280/464 5003 291/111
SEEN-BY: 292/854 301/1 313/41 320/219 322/757 335/364 341/66 234 342/200
SEEN-BY: 362/6 371/0 396/45 460/58 256 1124 5858 530/204 633/280 712/848
SEEN-BY: 712/1321 902/26 2320/105 3634/0 12 27 56 57 58 60 119 5054/30
SEEN-BY: 5058/104 5075/35
PATH: 240/12 1120 3634/12 154/10 221/6 460/58 229/426