Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I am running a VNC server on Linux and a TightVNC viewer (ver.1.3.10 from 2/10/2009) on Windows with 2 monitors attached to it. I would like to have a full-screen session on both monitors at the same time, but whenever I do that, my full-screen always uses only one monitor.
Is it possible to extend the full-screen onto both local monitors? Perhaps there is a more modern version of a viewer that could make it work?
(In regular, not full-screen mode, it is easy - just run the VNC server with double desktop size and stretch the window on the local machine across both monitors. It's the full-screen mode that I cannot make work.)
Real VNC Viewer (5.0.3) - Free :
Options->Expert->UseAllMonitors = True
RealVNC 5.0.x now offers a VNCViewer that will do dual displays on Windows without having to buy a license. (Licensing now covers the SERVER portion of their tools).
The free version of TightVnc viewer (I have TightVnc Viewer 1.5.4 8/3/2011) build does not support this. What you need is RealVNC but VNC Enterprise Edition 4.2 or the Personal Edition. Unfortunately this is not free and you have to pay for a license.
From the RealVNC website [releasenote] http://www.realvnc.com/products/enterprise/4.2/release-notes.html
VNC Viewer: Full-screen mode can span monitors on a multi-monitor system.
tightVNC 2.5.X and even pre 2.5 supports multi monitor.
When you connect, you get a huge virtual monitor.
However, this is also has disadvantages.
UltaVNC (Tho when I tried it, was buggy in this area) allows you to connect to one huge virtual monitor or just to 1 screen at a time. (With a button to cycle through them) TightVNC also plan to support such a feature.. (When , no idea)
This feature is important as if you have large multi monitors and connecting over a reasonably slow link.. The screen updates are just to slow..
Cutting down to one monitor to focus on is desirable.
I like tightVNC, but UltraVNC seems to have a few more features right now..
I have found tightVNC more solid. And that is why I have stuck with it.
I would try both. They both work well, but I imagine one would suite slightly more then the other.
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I was searching for some benchmark between hardware between Linux server and it version for desktop. All that I could find was between different kinds of servers mainly Linux and windows.
Anyway, my question is if the Linux server, Ubuntu 14.04 to be more specific, perform better and consume less than the desktop version.
If is relevant for the answer, my application to the system I want to deploy is just a simple rest service for my mobile app. I am the only client for the service and so I want to plan how much my energy bill will grow and compare it to sheared hosts.
The machine I will (or not) deploy my server is a Samsung NP-R540 with a dual-core Intel® Core™ i3 CPU M 380 # 2.53GHz processor and 4 GB of RAM.
In most regards, yes.
A system without a GUI (guessing you are not going to slab an X server on top off it but run it pure CLI) generally has a lower power consumption than a fullblown desktop machine.
Primarily since you do not need to utilize a power hungry GPU that emits heat.
Same goes for sound.
General tip for using a normal PC as a server is to remove graphic cards if possible and use only the built in. If the box is missing a built in, try to get a hold of a passively cooled graphics card.
Disable everything that you are not going to need in BIOS.
For example,
Floppy controllers,
IDE controllers (if you have both IDE and SATA and will not be using IDE drives)
Built in sound.
PS/2 controllers (if existing, and you connect keyboard via USB)
Firewire (if not used)
Fake-raid (if not used)
Furthermore removing any stupid LED lights (power LED indicator may be nice though), and perhaps extra fans if they are mounted solely in order to cool down a gaming graphics card.
Needless to say, a server version of a Linux distribution is smaller, leaving out the packages that makes up the GUI environments and associated services.
Thus leaving a smaller footprint both on disk and on power consumption since you wont have 500 packages laying around that are updated needlessly.
I think it largely depends on what you run. The default server and desktop distributions will have different services and even the kernels might be optimised differently. You can use a tool like powertop to analyse what exactly is consuming power and optimise accordingly.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I am PhD student, most of my work is related to statistical analysis of large amount of data ( binary files). I recently bought a new desktop, I am looking for suggestions for setting up my desktop. I have some considerations:
Most of my work must be done on Linux platform.
My supervisor uses MS windows only, and he requires us to write reports in MS word/PPT so that he can make comment easily.
Beside desktops, we have a cluster computer whose OS is RHEL. It stores the data to be analyzed.
Now the problem is that if I install Linux only on my desktop, then I can't write reports. If I install both in my desktop, I have to switch back and forth which is fussy. And I cannot access my data that stored under Linux file system. If I use windows only, then I can't work! Three solutions are in my mind
Buy another laptop, use desktop for data analysis and the laptop for report writing. All my collages adopt this solution. But still, it is fussy because I have to have top displays on my tiny desk, and in addition it is inconvenient to download and upload data to and fro between two computers.
Install Linux only and use virtual machine to simulate a windows, I really want to try this solution, but I don't have any experiences. Are virtual machine softwares on Linux platform stable or are they just as messy as wine?
Are there any other solutions to my situation?
he requires us to write reports in MS word
[...]
Now the problem is that if I install Linux only on my desktop, then I can't
write reports.
With
LibreOffice Writer,
you can save as Microsoft Word format.
Writer easily reads Microsoft Word documents, and you can also save your
work in Microsoft Word format, for sending to people still locked into
Microsoft products.
VirtualBox works well for running Windows under Linux.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I've been using linux at university for quite a while, and it seems much more customisable and better for coding.
So I want to switch to linux from windows 7 at home.
What branch of linux should I use? I'm an emacs user if that gives any insight.
Which desktop enviroment should I use? At uni we use KDE, but it's too graphical, often I just click on stuff instead of using the terminal. I want one where it encourages me to use terminal more.
and the biggest question, how do I install it all? Should I put everything on external hard drive and wipe my computer completley?
I primarily program in Java and python.
I would recommend that you first try using Linux off Live CD/DVD. Linux Mint, Ubuntu, etc.
Just download and burn .iso onto blank media and boot your computer off of it. Just play around, check various desktop environments, see if all your hardware work with the specific Linux distribution. This step is very useful to decide which distribution you actually want to install onto your computer, especially the latter since, while it has been improving, the biggest obstacle you may face in configuring your computer to run on Linux is often hardware incompatibility. Just make sure everything that you need to work actually works.
If you have no issues wiping out Windows, Linux installation is pretty straightforward these days. It even takes less time in general than re-installing Windows. I would browse the web for an installation note for your specific computer model to see if anyone has already successfully done so, so that you can just follow. That saves a lot of time.
I use Debian (Wheezy now) and KDE. It's very easy to install and switch desktop environments after installing Linux though, so that shouldn't be any concern.
I suggest creating a virtual machine using VMWare or Virtual Box. As far as the distribution goes, Linux Mint and Ubuntu are pretty user-friendly for first time installations. And for the desktop environment, I suggest XFCE.
A few Google searches will do you good. I think a virtual environment will be much more easier to manage than partitioning a hard-drive.
Well, the installation step, if you use Windows 7, you may want to make a full backup of your hdd - so if things go wrong you will be safe and able to recover.
I was in somewhat similar situation recently - figuring out which linux distro to use. Previously I had luck with ScientificLinux, but this time it didn't like my laptop hardware for some reason - after wake-up wireless network card was getting stuck and wasnt picking any signal. I didn't want to recompile kernel etc., so I installed Ubuntu, but the Gnome 3 was a show stopper - I had to roll back to Gnome 2, but later I tried and liked a lot XFCE desktop - which I use right now on my workstation and laptop.
Java, Python and emacs probably work well with any linux distribution out of the box, so it is up to you which one to choose after all. Good luck!
Sorry, forgot to mention - all contemporary Linux distributions are able to install a dual boot feature - so you can keep your Windows 7 setup along with Linux (if you have enough of free space), moreover Windows partition will be accessible from Linux which is handy sometimes.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm going to get a low-end old (CHEAP!) computer to run non-stop as a little server for Subversion, Mercurial, Trac and maybe a little other things. It's 99% for myself - performance isn't a concern.
It'll probably have a 1 GHz P3/P4/Celeron, 256 MB SDRAM, 30 GB IDE HDD or something like that, any video card so I can hook up a monitor.
I could get about setting Windows Server on it, but I feel that's too much of an overkill. All I need is to access my code from my laptop, desktop, maybe remotely, same for a wiki, bug tracker, etc. so I feel that a light Linux distribution will be more than enough.
I want to have a GUI, preferably with Xfce, but I don't mind IceVM or any other light GUI - it doesn't have to be pretty, I just don't like CLI as a Windows user.
However, the advantage of Windows would be that I already have tons of experience setting it up and can directly use Remote Desktop to get to it and AFAIK I have access to Home Server that "just works" - unless you can suggest me a distro made for home servers.
So the question is: what Linux distribution do you think is best for my needs? Or should I just strap Windows Home Server on it?
I would suggest Ubuntu. Setting up/installing applications is just a breeze with apt-get.
Having used Debian for nearly seven years, I think it will suit your task very well. Besides, I find it much more convenient to manage than Red Hat based distributions (such as Scientific Linux, Fedora or CentOS).
EDIT: Ubuntu (which another poster has suggested) is essentially an advanced Debian customization towards desktop use. Ubuntu heavily relies on Python scripting and generally consumes more resources than Debian. I believe that original Debian fits the job you described better.
It doesn't sound like you have demanding requirements at all, so I'd probably go with something easy to set up. I believe Ubuntu is pretty good in this regard.
You might also want to look into VNC, which is a bit like a free, cross-platform Remote Desktop.
CentOS - a free version of RedHat Enterprise Linux which is the most common server Linux distribution.
I have been using Debian for very similar purposes. This too has a gui application install manager.(however, not everything I 've installed was available through the manager, then just used the command line)
I've also been using red hat at work for host development machine. I might consider Fedora for a home server, as there appears to be lots of support on the web for red hat/fedora.
BTW I use windows for most things, and just vnc on to the linux machine.
Have 4 DVI output. Seems I hopefully will have driver support on this. Details are sketchy online about supporting 4 outputs, but seems possible.
My question is from the Linux group and Virtualbox pros.... Will the seamless method of VirtualBox allow me to use all 3 of my monitors for multiscreen. I'd like to stick with Ubuntu and run Visual C# and other tools from my VirtualBox. Compiz effects are just too amazing to want Aero Glass.
What do you think, will my system be able to use the multiple monitors with VirtualBox and this graphics card? I've googled for hours and am still searching for answers.
Edit:
I tried virtualbox last night. Pretty slick, though I had an error in installing Visual C#NET. However, it wouldn't let you drag between multiple screens??? Is this something the host must resolve, or does the guest session need to have special settings for multiple monitors? Haven't been able to find anything in google supporting multiple monitors with virtualbox.
You should be able to configure your screens just fine. Don't know the exact details for an ATI setup, but you should be able to use Xinerama to create a single large virtual desktop, and then just run VirtualBox (though honestly, I prefer KVM, which runs on modern CPUs which provide native virtualization support) full-screen on one of those monitors. You would then be able to have three screens dedicated to Ubuntu, and the forth dedicated to Windows.
You might want to look into the non-Xinerama method of multiple displays. Each display is then treated as its own screen (so you'd have :0.0, :0.1, :0.2, and :0.3 for your X displays). You cannot move applications between the screens, but you get four independent desktops. I personally find that more useful than the idea of a single stretched desktop over multiple displays; when I used a laptop as my primary system, that's what I did, and when I get a second monitor for my computer, I'll likely return to that means of doing things. You'll have to investigate the specifics for such a setup with ATI, but the X server supports it, so it's just a matter of looking at your ATI driver's documentation to put the pieces together.