Re: x11 instead of aqua
Re: x11 instead of aqua
- Subject: Re: x11 instead of aqua
- From: Rich Cook <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 10:11:15 -0700
I definitely second VNC. Note that apple also sells Apple Remote
Access, but I use a combination of the following apps to facilitate
remote access:
1) VNC (OSXvnc is the server, and the client I use is "Chicken of the
VNC" :-)
2) ssh
3) IMAP server to manage my downloaded POP mail from my ISP
4) X11
This is all freeware, and all due to OS X's reliance on Unix
underpinnings.
On Jun 9, 2004, at 8:37 AM, Gareth Eason wrote:
If you want to do something similar with Mac OS X, try OSXvnc (VNC
for Mac)
I use this to get my windows and Apple desktops to appear on my Linux
workstation, which is where I do all my 'work' from. Saves me
switching between keyboards and mice and monitors and using KVMs and
whatnot.
Regards,
-->Gar
Wolf Schweitzer wrote:
A colleague started Gimp on my G4 / dual proc. 1.25 GHz / 2 GB RAM,
while
sitting at his Linux portable computer, as X-windows client. That
means, the
application runs on the G4, and serves the display output to the
X-client. He
said he'd never seen Gimp start THAT fast ... So, X is no stopgap!
If you install Matlab on a Mac with lots of memory, you can use X
windows to
run a couple of Matlabs, on that particular Mac, from any other Mac
with X11. That means, you can run Matlab with a full 8 GB RAM access
(soon, hopefully),
while sitting at an iMac with 512 MB RAM, and still work as if things
were
going on on your own computer. And you can have more than one person
do that
and take advantage of that workstation that you bought. I believe you
can't do that with Aqua. If you start an application using Mac
OS X filesharing, the application ends up running on the 'client'
rather than
the host, and it also does not necessarily run very fast. Basically,
X is something different, and I'm happy it's on Mac OS X :-) Wolf.
---
from http://www.x.org/X11_protocol.html: The X Protocol defines a
client-server relationship between an application and
its display. To meet this the application (called an X client) is
divorced
from the display (known as the X server). X further provides a common
windowing system by specifying both a device dependent and an
independent
layer, and basing the protocol on an asynchronous network protocol for
communication between an X client and X server. In effect, the X
Protocol
hides the peculiarities of the operating system and the underlying
hardware.
This masking of architectural and engineering differences simplifies
X client
development and provides the springboard for the X Window System's
high
portability.
---
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 22:01:54 -0700, x11-users-request wrote
From: Patrick Coskren <email@hidden>
Speaking personally, I tend to see the X11 stuff as a stopgap. For
a technical app with an X11 interface, I'd use it and be happy to
have it. (See MATLAB, or NEURON.) But the instant a competitor
came along with a native interface, phwoop, I'd be gone. So I'd see
it as more of a competitive advantage than an essential requirement.
For non-technical apps, I agree with Eric. You'd be relegating
yourself to a "power-user" audience.
-Patrick
_______________________________________________
x11-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/x11-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
_______________________________________________
x11-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/x11-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
_______________________________________________
x11-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/x11-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.