Xvnc + inetd
duckeo at gmail.com
Sun Jun 26 12:53:19 GMT 2005
On 6/26/05, Garrett Cooper <youshi10 at u.washington.edu> wrote:
> duckeo wrote:
> >On 6/26/05, duckeo <duckeo at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>Because isn't VNC far more efficient? I've read X is only really
> >>useful locally, also because VNC is more common a client on Windows
> >>machines (as in already installed).
> I'm not sure if that's true or not. I've talked to various people
> who've advocated both angles, but it appears that X forwarding is
> (arguably) more secure. I don't know if this is the case or not, and I
> also don't know if they were referring to not SSH port forwarded
> connections as opposed to a non-localhost-only based server.
> But I do know that running multiple separate X sessions as opposed
> to X port forwarding is overall less efficient if you're dealing with a
> large number of users accessing one host. This is true because VNC-in
> various forms-has a tendency to eat up some userspace memory (I think
> around 5-8Mb per instance), in addition to the actual X session
> allocated memory that it's associated with. That's just a thought to
> consider when comparing the two.
I'll take that into consideration as the usercount starts to increase
on the box, at the moment it will be mostly network oriented IT staff
needing access to utilities.
The main concern is access to X from Windows machines, and VNC still
seems to be the easiest method (we also have things like activeX
capabale VNC clients we like to use for remote access).
More information about the freebsd-questions