3 ms·

X allows me to run a program on one computer and see it appear on a local desktop, not access a remote desktop from random machines. The former is simply not a

by saurik 4y ago

X allows me to run a program on one computer and see it appear on a local desktop, not access a remote desktop from random machines. The former is simply not a use case I am interested in, as I can pretty much always run the graphical program locally instead; in contrast, the latter is something I have found to be extremely useful in numerous situations and even on a near-daily basis back when my life was organized differently... and X simply does not do that, which is why people use solutions like Xvnc (which runs a local X server on the remote machine and then provides you VNC protocol access to its framebuffer).

tgflynn 4y ago
I'm not sure what you mean. X can certainly run a full remote desktop, or at least it could, I'm not sure how well it works with current versions of KDE and Gnome. If you mean connect remotely to a desktop that someone else is using on another machine, yes that is indeed a different use case.
- saurik 4y ago
  I mean the latter, as I maintain the former isn't useful. The people who want to remote desktop into their Windows computer generally aren't asking about this feature so they can simply get fresh access to a remote computer as that's generally not how remote desktop is configured: it is so they can leave all of their programs running on the remote computer and get remote access to it.
  - dixie_land 4y ago
    how is the former not useful? At end of the day there's some app you're running on that RDP session right? X simply allows you to run that app remotely and display it locally. Eg, my kvm (virtualization) host runs RHEL and no desktop environment, but I can easily run virt-manager using X forwarding over SSH when I'm creating a new VM and a GUI is easily than writing a domain XML In face I've forwarded virt-manager to Linux, macOS (XQuartz) and Windows (WSL w/ X server)
    - saurik 4y ago
      I mean, OK, it isn't never useful: maybe you are sitting at a computer that really doesn't have the power to do the thing you want to do, or maybe the thing you want to do really needs access to very large files and it is better to run the computation next to the data. However, this isn't why people want to use the "remote desktop" protocol. The app that I'm accessing over RDP isn't something I'm running after I connect to RDP: virtually all of the time it is an app that has been running for weeks and will remain running for weeks to come. I am using my computer right now, after having woken up from a nap. This computer is doing all the things I left it doing when I went to take that nap. It has a bunch of state for all of these running applications, and if every time I walked away from my computer all of that state disappeared, I'd be annoyed, as I want to be able to sit down at my computer and do five minutes of work and then go off and do something else and come back and do five minutes more of work. This is the primary use case for the remote desktop protocol: I leave a bunch of software running on my desktop and then I go somewhere else and I can remotely log in to my desktop and see all of my running programs. If I have spotty wifi and I only manage to get connected for 30 seconds before I get disconnected, I can just reconnect and everything is exactly where it was as I wasn't logging to run anything: I'm accessing things that are already running. So, no: "at the end of the day" these are fundamentally different use cases, and the former use case simply isn't something I feel like I ever want to do. Hell: it isn't even what I generally want with a terminal! (I had always set myself up so I had running static screen sessions going that I'd remotely connect into, and then I use either autossh or a little bash function running ssh in a loop to reconnect to that remote screen session so when I open my laptop it steals my terminal from wherever I was using it last to my local display.) The premise of remote desktop connections is something which kind of changes how you use your computer: once you try it and get used to it, you start to treat the terminal you are at as a commodity, as every computer not only has access to your files but every computer has the same state and let's you immediately jump right in to where you left off with your work. In contrast, I'd claim the use cases where you want to, while you are out, run an app on a computer you aren't at is a niche use case.
      - dixie_land 4y ago
        Thanks for clarifying. Now I see your point more clearly. Interesting while I do similar things regarding remote ssh/screen/tmux sessions, I never get used to do that with Remote Desktop sessions. I agree it’s different use cases and personal preferences
throwaway09223 4y ago
X certainly does do that, the protocol is called XDMCP and it's been around since the 80's. "I can pretty much always run the graphical program locally instead" Then why do you need a remote desktop? This is a really strange comment, because you shouldn't ever care whether the window manager is local or remote (as with XDMCP) - the only thing that should matter is whether the apps are local or remote. Whatever it is you're doing with apps on a remote desktop can be done better by simply displaying the app remotely on your own desktop. What exactly is the use case for needing to run a second window manager remotely? It's such a strange thing to say that you need.
- saurik 4y ago
  Right now I am sitting at "my computer". On "my computer" I have a ton of running state: I have a bunch of open web browser windows with a ton of tabs in each, I have open terminal sessions that are currently displaying the output of histories I am interested in or are actively running programs that I'm working with... hell: I have background computations being managed by various programs, such as video editing and encoding software, that I am interacting with. You might choose to call this state my "desktop", and I want to have "remote desktop" access. Now, I go somewhere else. While I'm out, I realize "oh, I need to change the queue on my encoding software" or I want to talk about some web page I have open. This is what Remote Desktop on Windows is doing for me: I don't connect to my computer remotely and then have some abstract notion of "I guess I can run software at home but see it here"... I actually am able to make that computer I'm at--wherever it is, and whatever it is (often it is my phone! the RDP clients for iOS and Android are excellent)--equivalent to the computer I have at home. As far as I have ever understood--and I'm NOT an expert at X, though I've been using it for 25 years in various capacities ;P--X fundamentally doesn't do that: X clients connect to X servers, and if the X server dies then the X client also dies. The Window Manager--the behavior and interaction of which in this system I, in fact, care about deeply--also connects to the server. I have never come across a use case where I'd want to run a graphical app on one computer and merely have it display on a local computer: in that case, I can simply run that app locally. However, what has given me superpowers is the ability to run the entire stack remotely and then "connect to it" from a local computer. I don't want to, while I'm out, run a new web browser process at home and have it appear on whatever device I'm at... I want to have the web browser I've already been running--along with all of its windows, all of their tabs, and their running state that have been actively continuing to execute and do stuff while I'm out--appear on the computer I'm at, making it feel everyone's computer becomes "my computer".

by saurik 4y ago

tgflynn 4y ago

I'm not sure what you mean. X can certainly run a full remote desktop, or at least it could, I'm not sure how well it works with current versions of KDE and Gnome. If you mean connect remotely to a desktop that someone else is using on another machine, yes that is indeed a different use case.

saurik 4y ago
I mean the latter, as I maintain the former isn't useful. The people who want to remote desktop into their Windows computer generally aren't asking about this feature so they can simply get fresh access to a remote computer as that's generally not how remote desktop is configured: it is so they can leave all of their programs running on the remote computer and get remote access to it.
- dixie_land 4y ago
  how is the former not useful? At end of the day there's some app you're running on that RDP session right? X simply allows you to run that app remotely and display it locally. Eg, my kvm (virtualization) host runs RHEL and no desktop environment, but I can easily run virt-manager using X forwarding over SSH when I'm creating a new VM and a GUI is easily than writing a domain XML In face I've forwarded virt-manager to Linux, macOS (XQuartz) and Windows (WSL w/ X server)
  - saurik 4y ago
    I mean, OK, it isn't never useful: maybe you are sitting at a computer that really doesn't have the power to do the thing you want to do, or maybe the thing you want to do really needs access to very large files and it is better to run the computation next to the data. However, this isn't why people want to use the "remote desktop" protocol. The app that I'm accessing over RDP isn't something I'm running after I connect to RDP: virtually all of the time it is an app that has been running for weeks and will remain running for weeks to come. I am using my computer right now, after having woken up from a nap. This computer is doing all the things I left it doing when I went to take that nap. It has a bunch of state for all of these running applications, and if every time I walked away from my computer all of that state disappeared, I'd be annoyed, as I want to be able to sit down at my computer and do five minutes of work and then go off and do something else and come back and do five minutes more of work. This is the primary use case for the remote desktop protocol: I leave a bunch of software running on my desktop and then I go somewhere else and I can remotely log in to my desktop and see all of my running programs. If I have spotty wifi and I only manage to get connected for 30 seconds before I get disconnected, I can just reconnect and everything is exactly where it was as I wasn't logging to run anything: I'm accessing things that are already running. So, no: "at the end of the day" these are fundamentally different use cases, and the former use case simply isn't something I feel like I ever want to do. Hell: it isn't even what I generally want with a terminal! (I had always set myself up so I had running static screen sessions going that I'd remotely connect into, and then I use either autossh or a little bash function running ssh in a loop to reconnect to that remote screen session so when I open my laptop it steals my terminal from wherever I was using it last to my local display.) The premise of remote desktop connections is something which kind of changes how you use your computer: once you try it and get used to it, you start to treat the terminal you are at as a commodity, as every computer not only has access to your files but every computer has the same state and let's you immediately jump right in to where you left off with your work. In contrast, I'd claim the use cases where you want to, while you are out, run an app on a computer you aren't at is a niche use case.
    - dixie_land 4y ago
      Thanks for clarifying. Now I see your point more clearly. Interesting while I do similar things regarding remote ssh/screen/tmux sessions, I never get used to do that with Remote Desktop sessions. I agree it’s different use cases and personal preferences

throwaway09223 4y ago

X certainly does do that, the protocol is called XDMCP and it's been around since the 80's. "I can pretty much always run the graphical program locally instead" Then why do you need a remote desktop? This is a really strange comment, because you shouldn't ever care whether the window manager is local or remote (as with XDMCP) - the only thing that should matter is whether the apps are local or remote. Whatever it is you're doing with apps on a remote desktop can be done better by simply displaying the app remotely on your own desktop. What exactly is the use case for needing to run a second window manager remotely? It's such a strange thing to say that you need.

saurik 4y ago
Right now I am sitting at "my computer". On "my computer" I have a ton of running state: I have a bunch of open web browser windows with a ton of tabs in each, I have open terminal sessions that are currently displaying the output of histories I am interested in or are actively running programs that I'm working with... hell: I have background computations being managed by various programs, such as video editing and encoding software, that I am interacting with. You might choose to call this state my "desktop", and I want to have "remote desktop" access. Now, I go somewhere else. While I'm out, I realize "oh, I need to change the queue on my encoding software" or I want to talk about some web page I have open. This is what Remote Desktop on Windows is doing for me: I don't connect to my computer remotely and then have some abstract notion of "I guess I can run software at home but see it here"... I actually am able to make that computer I'm at--wherever it is, and whatever it is (often it is my phone! the RDP clients for iOS and Android are excellent)--equivalent to the computer I have at home. As far as I have ever understood--and I'm NOT an expert at X, though I've been using it for 25 years in various capacities ;P--X fundamentally doesn't do that: X clients connect to X servers, and if the X server dies then the X client also dies. The Window Manager--the behavior and interaction of which in this system I, in fact, care about deeply--also connects to the server. I have never come across a use case where I'd want to run a graphical app on one computer and merely have it display on a local computer: in that case, I can simply run that app locally. However, what has given me superpowers is the ability to run the entire stack remotely and then "connect to it" from a local computer. I don't want to, while I'm out, run a new web browser process at home and have it appear on whatever device I'm at... I want to have the web browser I've already been running--along with all of its windows, all of their tabs, and their running state that have been actively continuing to execute and do stuff while I'm out--appear on the computer I'm at, making it feel everyone's computer becomes "my computer".