Slashdot: News for Nerds


Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×


Obviously (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10571627)

UltraVNC [] because their website has a picture of a girl.

Re:Obviously (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10571653)

> UltraVNC because their website has a picture of a girl.

Since when does VNC have anything to do with mythological creatures?

Re:Obviously (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10571673)

I fucked your mom last night

Re:Obviously (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10571751)

How surprising, me too.

Re:Obviously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10571730)

Hahahah. That little VNC keyboard image is hilarious.

vino (5, Informative)

auzy (680819) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571634)

vino's included in gnome 2.6 and uses the new xorg extensions making it very very fast

Re:vino (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10571711)

You mean GNOME 2.8, not 2.6. ;)

tightvnc vs. real vnc (4, Informative)

fozzy(pro) (267441) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571635)

tight vnc has delivered better video and a more stable comneection for me both over a local netowrk at college and phone modems at home.

Re:tightvnc vs. real vnc (5, Interesting)

cbreaker (561297) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571658)

Yea, me too. It's not fantastic, being VNC after all. But it works pretty well, good video quality over a slower connection too. TightVNS is stable too.

Re:tightvnc vs. real vnc (4, Informative)

dtfinch (661405) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571830)

TightVNC works pretty well for me, with a few notable issues. I use it exclusively. But on occasion the display updates would just stop, and I'd have to restart the client. Also the client would occasionally crash with an error like unknown colorkey, I forgot the exact text. Using 1.2.9. Haven't checked the latest to see if the bugs have been fixed.

As for security, if you have it set to turn off wallpaper, it turns it off upon every connection attempt, before authentication. It's a pretty resource intensive action. I've been able to use this to DOS my home pc's, opening hundreds of connections. The system bogs down with a rapid flashing of the desktop reminiscent of the japanese seizure robots.

I suppose I should file bug reports for all these.

tightvnc (0, Redundant)

grink (116056) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571636)


First Post. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10571637)

The ATT VNC is the best.

Use VNC on a windows box, and x2vnc on a linux box.

Have fun.

Actually (3, Funny)

NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571638)

I'd go for the first to support OS/2.

Re:Actually (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10571700)

To the fuckwad who modded the parent a troll.....go sanitize your momma's cunt.

UltraVNC (4, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571639)

Let's think about this for a moment. UltraVNC is the only Windows VNC that acts like a video driver. THus it's the only one that doesn't need to poll the hell out of your computer. Thus it's the only one that gets all the screen updates right.

Pinky, are you thinking what I'm thinking?

Re:UltraVNC (2, Informative)

jtriska (520530) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571708)

And its FAST.

Plus, its still backwards compatible with the standard/original vnc, so you can connnect to it even without the optimized windows UltraVNC client.

Re:UltraVNC (5, Informative)

drulez (67289) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571710)

actually ... tightvnc 1.3.x supports a video driver.

additionally, enhancements have been made to
the polling algorithm which have greatly improved
performance and cpu usage.

1.3.x is labelled a development version,
but it's very stable. check it out.

Re:UltraVNC (4, Insightful)

Ark42 (522144) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571822)

I have to agree with TightVNC - the video driver addon for 1.3 is very good and TightVNC is by far the fastest VNC I've used.

Pinky (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10571752)

Pinky, are you thinking what I'm thinking?

Uh... yeah, Brain, but where are we going to find rubber pants our size?

Re:UltraVNC (5, Informative)

Com2Irq5 (662435) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571755)

UltraVNC crashes on Windows machine with an ATI All-In-Wonder Video Card. It also has problems on machines with multiple monitors.

Re:UltraVNC (5, Funny)

magefile (776388) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571762)

THus it's the only one that doesn't need to poll the hell out of your computer ... Pinky, are you thinking what I'm thinking?
Narf, I think so Brain, but where are we going to get enough punchcard ballot machines for all the voters in Florida by midnight November 1st?

Re:UltraVNC (0, Troll)

Kulaid982 (704089) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571844)

Narf, I think so Brain, but where are we going to get enough punchcard ballot machines for all the voters in Florida by midnight November 1st?

Mod parent up! It's the first post that I've ever read to finish a Pinky and the Brain reference with an original Pinky response!!!

REAL ADMINS USE SSH (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10571641)


VNC on Mac OS X (5, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571642)

For Mac OS X, there are several options; what I believe to be the best options are below.

On the server end of things, there's OSXvnc [] , a nice free VNC server for Mac OS X. (There's even an OS9vnc, on the same page.)

The best free client for Mac OS X, in my opinion, is Chicken of the VNC [] .

At the commercial end of the spectrum is Apple Remote Desktop 2.1 [] . Apple Remote Desktop is much more than just a remote control solution; it provides desktop and systems management tools, software distribution tools, mass screen sharing, scripted actions, and all sorts of other features. But as of version 2, the remote screen protocol is based on VNC. With one checkbox, any VNC client can connect to any machine running Apple's VNC server software (which it confusingly calls "Remote Desktop Client"), and Apple's client software (which it calls "Remote Desktop Admin") can connect to ordinary VNC servers on any platform. Apple Remote Desktop does automatic resolution scaling, full screen, etc., and as of 2.1, even supports multiple monitors - even when using free VNC clients to connect! The VNC server piece (the one Apple calls "Client") is free, but there's a catch: at least one copy Remote Desktop Admin is required to be "legal", but then Remote Desktop Client can be installed on an unlimited number of machines in your organization.

Re:VNC on Mac OS X (2, Informative)

erik umenhofer (782) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571721)

there's still a bug in b2 that causes issues with interacting with tighvnc server. should be fixed in the next release though!

Re:VNC on Mac OS X (1)

Tibor the Hun (143056) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571771)

yes, i like OSXvnc as well. i ssh into my box, start up the OSXvnc, and am good to go.
i do this because i don't like to have a server running all the time, and i haven't figured out how to start the apple remote desktop via ssh. (i haven't tried very hard since ssh+OSXvnc works so well for me...)

How to start Remote Desktop remotely (4, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571836)

Apple has information on how to start Remote Desktop remotely for ARD versions 1.2 and earlier [] , 1.2.1 to 1.2.4 [] , and 2.0 and newer [] .

VNC?? (5, Funny)

Mori Chu (737710) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571644)

I wouldn't use any of em; can't trust the VNC. Lousy Vemocrats!!!

Re:VNC?? (1)

T-Ranger (10520) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571746)

Hmm. ?NC:

  • DNC: not great, but better then the alternative
  • VNC: good
  • BNC: bad, but better then F

I guess 1 and two halves out of 3 isnt bad.

I have no point

Re:VNC?? (5, Funny)

DarkSkiesAhead (562955) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571800)

Ah, another misguided Vepublican. When will you learn that the VOP is only helping out big business?

the one that comes with GNOME 2.8 (1)

codergeek42 (792304) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571645)

is pretty nice and it is very well integrated with the DE as a whole

Avoid radmin (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10571646)

No idea about the others but avoid radmin at all costs. It's a security nightmare, easy to extract passwords out of and very easy to break into.

Re:Avoid radmin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10571842)

Got any references, or are you just shooting your mouth off? Everything I've been able to find in a quick search indicates that if you set it up correctly, it's extremely secure.

cast another vote for tightVNC (3, Informative)

netnerd.caffinated (473121) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571649)

as a user of the original REAL VNC, i went to tight case it performed much better over dialup

Re:cast another vote for tightVNC (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10571770)

Tight is good, but UltraVNC has tight built in. Tight compression is just PNG compression for high contrast areas, and JPEG compression for lower contrast areas. UltraVNC combines the best features of all the other VNC into one. Ultra also includes a file transfer utility, and a plugin to authenticate against a Windows Domain. Not to mention they have a plugin architecture that allows encryption.

Wow..! (4, Interesting)

ID000001 (753578) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571651)

The only VNC i have used is RealVNC, PCanywhere (Old) and Remote desktop for MS windows. I realize the best and most speedy one out of them all are actually Remote desktop that came with WindowsXP Pro and such.. I still use RealVNC for internet connection. The Java browser that does not requires software download are particularly useful. But perhaps it is time to check out the alternative... I didn't realize there are so many out there at all!

Re:Wow..! (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571668)

I realize the best and most speedy one out of them all are actually Remote desktop that came with WindowsXP Pro and such..

You haven't tried Citrix. :-D

Re:Wow..! (1)

artemis67 (93453) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571734)

I thought Remote Desktop was based on Citrix?

Anyway, I have to agree with the original post... I use both VNC and Remote Desktop, and Remote Desktop is better by far. It's nice that I can use the Mac client to manage my various Windows servers, and it's also nice that the program shares the Clipboard between the desktops. The one thing I would like to see them add is the ability to drag-and-drop files between desktops.

Re:Wow..! (4, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571778)

I thought Remote Desktop was based on Citrix?

No, not quite. Citrix originally licensed NT 3.51 and changed the windows code in order to retrofit true-multiuser capabilities and their super-thin, super-fast ICA protocol. When Microsoft noticed that the idea worked, they refused to license NT 4.0, and created their RDP protocol in a hurry. As a result, the RDP protocol was similar, but much heavier than ICA.

I remember some of our users running Citrix over dial-up. It was difficult to tell they weren't at their terminals. :-)

Re:Wow..! (1)

nFriedly (628261) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571802)

the remote desktop in windows is all i have ever used. it was already there, and it works. im always on a broadband connection, so the lag isnt too bad. dont think iv ever had it crash on me.

I use (1)

mattboston (537016) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571656)

UltraVNC, it's works great.

Real VNC (1)

jlefeld (814985) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571657)

Real VNC has worked great for me. I liked how you could access your VNC server with a java enabled web browser. I'm not sure if the others could do it, but I liked how Real VNC could do it.

Re:Real VNC (1)

Stonent1 (594886) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571818)

All VNCs support that. Nice to access your desktop from any computer with Java. (Adminning Windows servers from Solaris or Mac OS9)

Fastest (5, Informative)

Cthefuture (665326) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571661)

If we're talking Unix(ish) systems then the fastest and most functional on fast connections (like ethernet) is actually "none of the above". A normal X11 session is much more smooth and responsive than any VNC. Endless scaling, etc...

And Terminal Services on Windows is much better than VNC (there are Unix clients).

Over slow connections VNC is better. I just use whichever works. I've found that RealVNC locks up/crashes Windows less often than the others.

Re:Fastest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10571747)

I should also mention that if you use ssh with X11 forwarding then it's also much more secure than most of the VNC's (turn compression on for best results). Good stuff.

It performs so well that I actually run VMware over X. So I have a remote Linux machine running VMware/Windows/Linux over a ssh X11 connection.

Re:Fastest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10571758)

The primary reason to use VNC though is to shadow an existing session, somthing you can't really do with X11. (not to say I don't like Xnest =)

You'll more likely use RDP than Terminal Services on Windows. I'm not sure if there's a client that lets you shadow a Terminal Service session from Unix (might be though..)

Re:Fastest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10571759)

It may be the fastest, but I don't think it's the most functional. I keep a vnc session running on a server at work and log into it from my office desktop when I'm at work or from my home desktop when I'm at home. This way I can easily pick up where I left off. The downside is that it's now simple to work at home and I have no life :(.


Re:Fastest (4, Informative)

jag164 (309858) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571760)

Your mileage may vary.... I find that VNC beats the living heck out of X11 sessions (at least the various windows X servers). Plus the whole shaky/burping LAN makes VNC such a nicer alternative in the MS-to-Unix world. Unix-to-unix I typically only use X over ssh for quick and dirty activiys, not heavy multi terminal coding sessions.

Re:Fastest (1)

BRTB (30272) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571766)

Okay... but can you open up several apps, close the session / lose your connection and then reconnect, having your apps still running in place? This is a must-have in my situation, for adminning several evil Java server-apps that insist on only running when they have an X window open.

On Windows I just use RDP/terminal services... for X I'm kinda locked into VNC, be it via the module or the VNC X server, depending on whether the server has a video device. VNC, even over somewhat fast Internet links (partial DS3 server end, 3mbit cable client, 50ms or less ping between) feels a lot more lagged than the RDP link.

Re:Fastest (1)

Covener (32114) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571783)

I'll agree with some of the other followups.

VNC buys you the convenience of detaching from it, and is just plain snappier for many apps. I'll quite often "buffer" a few apps in a VNC session for just those reasons.

Re:Fastest (1)

batkiwi (137781) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571791)

That really depends on what your goal is. Since you can't move X-sessions around (eg I can't start an app remotely on my desktop, then "move" its display to another desktop, or freeze it "Screen" style), I prefer the following setup on my debian boxes:

-NO "real" X11 server installed
-vnc4server installed, started up as a replacement for my X server
-vncfb running locally for when I'm "at" the computer
-real vnc from my windows box to take control

If you just want to go in and check something out that requires a WM, X11 is great, or if you want to do it just for one "session" it's great, but to leave anything running X11 just doesn't cut it.

For example, on my home filesharing box I leave azareus and a jabber client running, so I can vnc in to check my messages and check how downloads are going. Can't do that with JUST X.

Re:Fastest (4, Interesting)

harikiri (211017) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571797)

Something interesting I read about when I was looking for alternatives to X (even on local lan it can perform poorly). These figures are in comparison to Nomachine's NX technology [] :

The basic stuff is opensource. And the numbers I heard about this are pretty nice:

  • 9600 Baud GSM modem link over vanilla X: Mozilla-1.6 needs 4000 roundtrips and takes 5 minutes.
  • 9600 Baud GSM modem link over NX: Mozilla-1.6 needs a dozen roundtrips and takes 20 seconds.
  • KDE-3.2 desktop startup over vanilla X: transfers 4.8 MByte of data.
  • KDE-3.2 desktop startup over NX: transfers 35 kByte of data.

This was cut and pasted from an email I sent to workmates a while back when I heard about NX initially. These days I prefer to use RealVNC (until I get around to buying a copy of NX) to connect to my XFCE session at home from the office.

Even on what you consider a fast connection (local ethernet) I prefer VNC over X11.

For Windows platforms... (3, Informative)

chrispyman (710460) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571667)

For Windows platforms, I find that Microsoft Terminal Server (aka Remote Desktop) is the easiest way to troubleshoot problems without actually being at the computer. It also seems to fair quite a bit better over dial-up lines than VNC does.

Re:For Windows platforms... (3, Informative)

sndtech (738958) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571804)

Terminal Services is great if you just want to log into a computer, but if you want to interact with another user or your own session already in progress( say you leave your comp running in your dorm or wherever and you need to just change something on your current screen) a VNC program will work much better( I use RealVNC works great no crashes yet, love the java viewer). Terminal services will cause you to be logged in twice on the same machine, causes all sort of strangeness.

Re:For Windows platforms... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10571806)

We have a couple of servers that have to have certain batch scripts running or some other program up and running on the console, so RDP doesn't work for these servers, as it doesn't give you access to the computer like you were at the console. On these we use RealVNC, though I will be looking into UltraVNC b/c RealVNC is often rather slow to refresh the screen across the LAN! We have RealVNC installed on all 5 computers in a branch office and that is how we take care of problems that they have for the most part. Refreshes are slow, but you can connect via RDP to Win2k Professional boxes....

RealVNC, UltraVNC, TightVNC (4, Informative)

sgeye (757198) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571677)

We use RealVNC at our office. I have played with UltraVNC, which I found to have a few stability issues, and TightVNC, which was nice. If I recall correctly, TightVNC has a file transfer feature, which comes in handy from time to time.

VNC??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10571678)

For those of us who don't know what the hell VNC is, anyone care to explain?


Re:VNC??? (2, Informative)

codergeek42 (792304) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571702)

VNC == Virtual Network Computing

Basically allows you to do grahpical things and 'remote control' a computer over a network. You may want to read more about it on Wikipedia [] ...

Re:VNC??? (2, Insightful)

cyber_rigger (527103) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571738)

For those of us who don't know what the hell VNC is, anyone care to explain?

It's like remote control. []

RealVNC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10571679)

RealVNC is my personal favorite... and the only one i trust

Re:RealVNC (3, Informative)

hendersj (720767) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571732)

Personally, I only trust any VNC client (and I use RealVNC and TightVNC regularly) if I tunnel it over SSH. The protocol itself isn't terribly complex, and there are plenty of ways to obtain passwords off the wire (the password encryption algorithm, last time I checked, wasn't very secure).

Re:RealVNC (1)

michaelbuddy (751237) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571789)

according to the docs, tightvnc won't encrypt your screencaps, but it IS encrypting the password. I agree with you though, don't take chances.

Windows Remote Desktop (0, Redundant)

no soup for you (607826) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571686)

Are we limiting these clients to *nix? Is there a reason to not use Windows Remote Desktop Connection? I use it on all of our Windows servers, and really, until I see a need, why should I use another? It is faster than any of the hardware (dell DRAC card or KVM IP), and if I connect via a VPN to a secured LAN first, is there a security concern?

Microsoft. (0, Redundant)

Matey-O (518004) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571696)

Yeah, I know you want a VNC based solution, but the Microsoft/Citrix remote Desktop Protocol rocks.

gpl (5, Funny)

wikinerd (809585) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571712)

The first question is which VNC programs are GPL. This is the most important factor in finding the best VNC out there.

Re:gpl (1)

ICA (237194) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571727)

Yep, just like the most important factor in choosing a Linux distro is finding the one that calls itself GNU/Linux.

RAdmin has the lowest overhead (5, Informative)

hendersj (720767) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571716)

I have used a number remote control software packages (ranging from PCAnywhere to TightVNC), and in my experience, RAdmin provided the absolute lowest possible overhead on the wire - with PCAW 10 (the last version I used) and others, the best way to get the best performance is to cut the resolution down and cut the colour depth down.

With RAdmin, neither of these was necessary. I threw a sniffer on the wire to see what the traffic was like, and it was extremely small.

It also worked under Wine reasonably well (I don't know if they make a native Linux version now, they didn't when I played with it a couple of years ago). The amount of traffic with a 1600x1200x24 resolution on the remote desktop was small enough to be used over a dialup with reasonably good performance.

Re:RAdmin has the lowest overhead (2, Informative)

hendersj (720767) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571756)

Additional comment/answer to question in the story, RAdmin does scale the screen; it also has a configurable polling interval.

Re:RAdmin has the lowest overhead (1)

rikkards (98006) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571812)

I didn't find PCA 10.5 too bad. Try remote console into a workstation over a 64k satellite link :) Painful but not as bad as I would have expected.

Definitely radmin... but that's not a vnc. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10571717)

Radmin is damn good, but it's not a VNC. It's got it's own video driver and it's really kind of sleek.. Great if you need fast low bandwidth windows administration.. It's also really cheap..

Ultravnc is free with it's own video driver, and has some neat features the other vncs lack (like file transfers..) It has a nice feel, but it's a bit buggy and only works with windows..

Tightvnc has become the standard.. Good, clean.. It's nice.. Also recent version of RealVNC are good and I wouldn't complain about having to use those..

As a warning on non vnc's, stay away from CA's remote access product... It's terrible, buggy, slow, insecure, etc...

Re:Definitely radmin... but that's not a vnc. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10571840)

Radmin is very clunky, doesn't support a lot of stuff (dialog box shading, mouse icons, etc) and the promised version 3.0 update is 2 years late. Damn vapourware.

Radmin is "OK", but far far from a good solution.

copy and paste? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10571720)

While we're on the subject, I use RealVNC to view my Linux desktop on a Windows machine. Does anyone know how to copy and paste text between X apps in the VNC session and local apps on the Window machine?

Check out TWD Industries (2, Interesting)

Jonah Hex (651948) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571726)

If your looking to purchase an enterprise level solution, check out Remote Anything w/Directory Server []
Small footprint (90 KB): a single executable file, no DLLs, no drivers.
Portable so Mac, Linux, Solaris and FreeBSD versions will be available.
One-click installation+configuration allowing on-demand deployments.
Remotely invisible: impossibility to detect and attack Master/Slave*.
Transparently reach Slave PCs behind firewalls & routers with Masters*.
Auto-update Master & Slaves without interruption of service or reboot*.
Non-repudiation with RSA 2048-Bit keys + AES 128-Bit session keys*.
[*] Requires TWD Industries' Directory Server (DS).
The DS option offers database backup, multiple servers, and excellent NAT traversal and security. Controlling a slave is pretty much comparable to working with other VNC products, lots of options to speed things up, plus the configurability of the slave client is really full featured with all possible User Policy options an Admin could dream of.

Jonah Hex

TightVNC (2, Informative)

cloudkj (685320) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571729)

I haven't really used any of the other software, but TightVNC seems to work pretty well. I have yet to run into problems, and there are binaries for many platforms.

Related question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10571733)

Does anybody know if it is possible to set up a VNC-server in Linux with some kind of authentication which allows me to log in as a normal user and others to log in and use the server only in "viewonly" mode (no input is sent from client to the server)? This would be useful for remote demonstration purposes for example. I'v only found the "viewonly" option on the client side but maybe I've missed something.

Subseven (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10571735)

Subseven works fine for me

how remote is the pc (1)

nri (149893) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571736)

i got linux on my laptop and a windows pc next to me
(with its own monitor). I use x2vnc so i can use the lappy pc and mouse on both machines. connects to the sindows vncserver. you can do the reverse at the same time running win2vnc of the window box connecting to you linux vnc server. At home, i use grdestop to connect to work pc. much faster than any vnc connections

Multiple OS? (1)

LittleLebowskiUrbanA (619114) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571739)

I need one that works well with Linux and Windows. Having problems as of late with the default Redhat ES package and Windows clients.

RAdmin (2, Informative)

xrayspx (13127) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571740)

To the best of my knowledge, RAdmin is not based on VNC.

RAdmin has several nice features, but they're mostly not really anything you can't get from VNC. One cool exception to that is the ability to "bounce" from RAdmin servers. Let's say you are adminning a machine a remote location which is "messed up" in some way, bad subnet mask, bad default gateway, etc. You can set an intermediate machine at that location for RAdmin to bounce off of. It's also possible to use this to create an "RAdmin Gateway", so a machine on your edge network, which you bounce through to get access to the internal machines. That isn't a recommendation, but I've seen people do it before.

The 3.0 beta client also has nice Dealmaker features for me. Folder support, so no more one long ass list of all your connections (although you could DIY this solution through the use of command line shortcuts), and the ability to set the default refresh rate to something other than 100 updates/sec, rather than having to change it every time you make a new connection.

Other than that, they're all fairly similar. I like RAdmin's Get/Set clipboard feature. The file transfer is decent only for small files, but for those small files, it's great. There's a remote CMD shell feature which always struck me as a bad plan, but no worse than remote desktop I guess.

Try them all out, there's a 30 day trial of RAdmin anyway, just play. It's not nearly as fast as Terminal Services, but it's not as slow as (vanilla) VNC, or slow feeling I guess. And I haven't tried VNC in an eternity, so I'm no expert.

Really, RDP is the way to go if you have Windows2000 or 2003. It's super fast relative to anything else I use, 2k3 gives you the option of full color. However RAdmin is very good for servers on which you WANT multiple user sessions to "collide". I don't want someone logged into a server making contradictory changes to mine without us colliding with each other and backing off.

I like TightVNC (1)

wschalle (790478) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571745)

I use it on all my boxes... with an SSH tunnel of course.

VNC + Windows (2, Informative)

wirwzd (699017) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571749)

For those who have been avoiding RealVnc on Windows beause it seemed to peg the CPU, 4.0 seems much better and faster. Also the web browser applet now pops out its own window so you don't have to scroll all aver the place because of the browser controls.

tight (2, Interesting)

michaelbuddy (751237) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571769)

Tight VNC was pretty fast and worked well on my home network on Windows. You have to remember one is the Server and one is the viewer. Tight even will take down your desktop wallpaper automatically in order to save bandwidth. that was a nice feature built in.

Before you try to control your home computer from somewhere else, make sure you know how to configure your router. Your ISP phone agent will love to field those vnc questions I'm sure.

Hmmm.. (1)

disbaldman (804041) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571784)

Darn, and I always thought the best came from microsoft! []

Tight VNC through compressed SSH tunnel (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571793)

It's pretty sweet. I opted to use Tight VNC because their site had the best links on SSH tunnels. I'm running it on all of my linux boxen now.

Once for kicks, I opened a VNC session to one of my linux boxen and then opened a remote desktop connection to a windows machine over 802.11b. The Remote Desktop was as slow as molasses, but it worked.


tightVNC optimized for the windows enterprise... (1)

ManyLostPackets (646646) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571794) [] is a good for desktop support in the enterprise.

It's written in VB and is only for Windows 2000/xp workstations, but it allows you to browse the network and point and click installs on target machines. After your session has finnished, in uninstalls itself from the target PC without leaving a trace (no open ports on 5800!)

Oh yeah! it dosn't leave that pesky little V in the tray while running,either (totally stealth)

X11 for *nix, PCDuo for Windows (1)

Phloyd (95759) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571795)

Nothing beats a straight up X session for unix & linux. My favorite remote control program for windows is PCDuo []

TightVNC (1)

Bruzer (191590) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571799)

I use TightVNC on Linux to RealVNC on Windows. I was surprised to find cut and paste works between machines. I love being able to pop in on the other PC.

I would have to go with TightVNC as my favorite but the folks at work swear by the Windows XP desktop stuff.

TightVNC is awesome (1)

Scorpio1 (82882) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571801)

As the administrator of an all Mac network (which I love), I use Apple Remote Desktop when I'm on my Powerbook, but when I have to use a PC, I use TightVNC. It has been the most stable and easiest to use when connecting to the ARDAgent on a Mac.

Tridia VNC Pro (1)

DamienMcKenna (181101) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571811)

The used Tridia VNC and Tridia VNC Pro at work before I joined. My manager said that he thought Tridia VNC was really good, but that they messed it up with the Pro version. Better off sticking with one of the free ones IMHO.


TridiaVNC . (1)

Random Luck (79914) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571821)

For Windoze I use TridiaVNC because by default it does not open the browser port, 58xx, and with a few registry edits, I can tighten it down so the tray icon can not be seen, Joe User can not make changes nor kill the service, and I can restrict the IPs that can connect.

Windows Terminal Services (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571823)

Real VNC (formerly just plain ol' "VNC") works great for what it is, but it's not possible to beat Windows Terminal Services. Real multi-user sessions, plus with it being tied to the OS, there's simply no need for polling what's on the monitor, giving real time performance (or close to it) even over dialup.

vnc2swf (1)

michaelbuddy (751237) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571825)

I found a link to a capture program that will take your vnc frames and capture to a file. that might be useful recording your nerdness.

I am in no way affiliated with this sig.

locking/unlocking desktop - otherwise useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10571828)

i've tried a few of these VNCs, but i've yet to find one that supports locking/unlocking an NT/2K/XP desktop

and without this simple feature, they are simply useless

Re:locking/unlocking desktop - otherwise useless (1)

Random Luck (79914) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571850)

If you are using VNC from another NT/2000/XP box, hold the shift key and then use the CTRL-ALT-DEL key sequence. This will bring up the "Windows Security" window you seek.

NoMachine NX client (2, Interesting)

PDXRedcat (29992) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571829)

The best option is to use NX Serverto compress the VNC info. Then use the NX client to connect to the NX Server. This allows you security, snapiness, and best of all, one client to connect to RDP, VNC, X Windows machines. Mike

Depending on your needs (1)

pjcreath (513472) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571835)

There's also NetworkStreaming [] , formerly ExpertVNC. Their focus seems to be on making it easy for an administrator to allow VNC to work from the 'wrong' side of a firewall [] , letting off-site support reps do their thing.

I don't work for them, I just know some of the folks there.

Ultra VNC (3, Informative)

schnits0r (633893) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571838)

I used several VNC clients, and I found Ultra to be the best one. Acts like a video driver, has file transfers, is free, and has several other features I can't remember.

Ultr@VNC is my pick (1)

trud (180201) | more than 9 years ago | (#10571851)

TightVNC is tight, RealVNC is nice but Ultr@VNC gives you features over and above the rest.

Plugin Support

File Transfer

Integrated Winbloze Logins

Remote Screen Blanking

Better Vid Support

and more

I'm using this as the goto for remote support with ssh port forwarding as a conduit.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account