Subject: Re: windows X server?
To: None <Netbsd-Users@netbsd.org>
From: M. Barnabas Luntzel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/17/2003 20:15:44
I will second X-Win 32 - IIRC, it was inexpensive, was very reliable, and had a small footprint.
> I have tried both Exceed and X-Win 32 and they both worked fine
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Yerkes
> Sent: 18 January 2003 00:32
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: windows X server?
> Quoting Steve Bellovin (firstname.lastname@example.org):
> > This is slightly off-topic, but related... My daughter wants to use
> > various X applications on a NetBSD box. Her machine is running Win98.
> > What are some choices for an X server? Cygwin, the obvious answer,
> > proved unstable.)
> > --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
> > http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls"
> Of all the people at all the companies from whom I might expect
> children running Unix...
> VNC jumps to mind. I sort of miss when Windows had
> no TCP and you had to buy (far better) TCP programs
> that came with good tools.
> Hummingbird makes a fine X Server for Windows, I'm told.
> Not cheap, but that's the penalty for using Windows.
> Otoh, you could upgrade her machine to a Unix and keep
> some box to run Windows and VNC the desktop Unix to
> get Windows apps when you absolutely need them.
> Quake over VNC sucks, but it's adequate to sit in whatever
> program you occasionally need but can't get on Unix.
Some people should just not have root.