[Tfug] headless systems

[Claude Rubinson]

On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 08:47:17AM -0700, christopher floess wrote:
> Basically I would like to be able to log into the system and have
> full control of it without any character garbling issues just like I
> was sitting in front of it with a csh prompt.

The other reason that people are recommending ssh is because it's
up-to-date and generally won't run into the problems that you mention.
If you set up key-based authentication, you won't even know that
you're running over ssh.  The short answer is that there's really no
reason not to use ssh.  Even if you don't need the security features,
ssh is basically a drop in replacement for telnet.

> Or what would be even better is if I could have a graphical window
> that represents the desktop,

The term desktop sets off red flags for me.  A headless box--by
definition--doesn't have a desktop.  Hell, it doesn't have
graphics. At the top of your email you write "I'm trying to figure out
what the best way is to run a system remotely.  I've never really been
able to get an understanding for it."  Might I suggest--and in case
this comes across as rude, I don't mean to--that this suggests that
you're in need of a paradigm shift?

The concept of a desktop is a new addition to the Unix world, one
that, personally, I frown upon as I feel that it adds a needless layer
of additional complexity.  The point of Unix networking is that one
can easily and, largely transparently, hop from system to system.
Indeed, that's the reason that the `whoami` command exists: because
it's so easy to jump around systems and take on various identities
that you can easily forget who and where you are.

Try just using ssh for remote connections.  It does the body good.

Claude