Multiple Linux Remote Desktops



  • What's the best way to have multiple users log into one server, each with their own desktop (hopefully not needing to specify a display number like in VNC).



  • You basically want a Terminal Server on Linux?



  • xRDP works for this if you can get it working right.



  • @Dashrender said:

    You basically want a Terminal Server on Linux?

    Ya essentially.



  • @dafyre said:

    xRDP works for this if you can get it working right.

    I had read something about it. I'll have to try it. Thanks!



  • Any non-console video redirect option will work fine here. VNC specifically does not do what you want by default (but can be configured to do so) because it hooks to the console rather than to a higher TTY.

    Native X Windows, NX, RDP, 2X and others will do what you want. Pretty much any non-VNC will do what you want by default. You can do native X over SSH too.



  • @scottalanmiller said:

    Any non-console video redirect option will work fine here. VNC specifically does not do what you want by default (but can be configured to do so) because it hooks to the console rather than to a higher TTY.

    Native X Windows, NX, RDP, 2X and others will do what you want. Pretty much any non-VNC will do what you want by default. You can do native X over SSH too.

    I've done X over SSH, but I did read at one point it wasn't as "secure." I'm sure it's fine, it was just one of those things that sticks in the back of your mind and bothers you so I thought maybe there was another way to accomplish it.



  • @johnhooks said:

    I've done X over SSH, but I did read at one point it wasn't as "secure."

    X has no security (no REAL security) but SSH is incredibly secure. X is not supposed to be secure, it leaves that function to higher protocols like SSH.

    HTTP is not secure either. But HTTPS is very secure. SSH is built on SSL. X over SSH is the same security basics as HTTPS. It is actually a VPN. So extremely secure.

    Anyone saying X over SSH in not secure would need to explain, then, what they consider insecure as that would mean that any similar style VPN would be suspect, of course.



  • @johnhooks said:

    I'm sure it's fine, it was just one of those things that sticks in the back of your mind and bothers you so I thought maybe there was another way to accomplish it.

    X is not very efficient, but it is used all of the time locally with huge bandwdith. It's what is being used under the hood of all of the other protocols. So even if it was to be insecure, it would unravel the security of all of the others.


  • Banned

    Will SPICE do this? It's usually used for VDIs so normal setup it won't but not sure if it can be configured to do it.



  • @Jason said:

    Will SPICE do this? It's usually used for VDIs so normal setup it won't but not sure if it can be configured to do it.

    I don't believe so. I've not used it but am starting to look into it for some projects. But the VDI focused protocols typically do console redirects from the underlying platform. Because of that, they tend to be awesome for VDI but nearly useless for terminal servers.



  • Looks like SPICE could do it, found this comment on Wikipedia:

    Xspice
    The X.Org Server driver for the QXL framebuffer device includes a wrapper script[11] which makes it possible to launch an Xorg server whose display is exported via the SPICE protocol. This enables use of SPICE in a remote desktop environment, without requiring QEMU/KVM virtualization.