Folks

after a long absence from IT I'm starting to set up a server here at home for
operations as a database and www server. I'm intending to connect it to the
LAN but not allow it outside to play.

I was thinking of setting it up to run with no screen / keyboard to save space
in the apartment (and keep it out of the way).

Can anyone advise me if its better to try and get X going on the 'client'
computers and connect to the server via X or just use SSH?

thanks

See Ya
(when bandwidth gets better ;-)

Chris Eastwood
Photographer, Programmer Motorcyclist and dingbat
blog: http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/

please remove undies for reply

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:33:15 +0000, obakesan wrote:

> after a long absence from IT I'm starting to set up a server here at
> home for operations as a database and www server. I'm intending to
> connect it to the LAN but not allow it outside to play.
>
> I was thinking of setting it up to run with no screen / keyboard to save
> space in the apartment (and keep it out of the way).
>
> Can anyone advise me if its better to try and get X going on the
> 'client' computers and connect to the server via X or just use SSH?

SSH is all you really need to administer the server, but using X-based
tools is easier--point-n-click.

Stef

On Jul 3, 8:33 am, pellicleund...@hotmail.com (obakesan) wrote:
> Folks
>
> after a long absence from IT I'm starting to set up a server here at home for
> operations as a database and www server. I'm intending to connect it to the
> LAN but not allow it outside to play.
>
> I was thinking of setting it up to run with no screen / keyboard to save space
> in the apartment (and keep it out of the way).
>
> Can anyone advise me if its better to try and get X going on the 'client'
> computers and connect to the server via X or just use SSH?
>
> thanks
>
> See Ya
> (when bandwidth gets better ;-)
>
> Chris Eastwood
> Photographer, Programmer Motorcyclist and dingbat
> blog:http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/
>
> please remove undies for reply

I would use vncserver and connect to it using vnc client tunneled over
ssh. That would be the best if you still need gui utilities.

Later, I would also agree that ssh only thing you really need.

on the server do something like

vncserver -geometry 800x600 -depth 16

and then connect using vncviewer on the system 127.0.0.1:5901 or what
ever port it is listening on.

happy hunting.

obakesan wrote:
> Folks
>
> after a long absence from IT I'm starting to set up a server here at home for
> operations as a database and www server. I'm intending to connect it to the
> LAN but not allow it outside to play.
>
> I was thinking of setting it up to run with no screen / keyboard to save space
> in the apartment (and keep it out of the way).
>
> Can anyone advise me if its better to try and get X going on the 'client'
> computers and connect to the server via X or just use SSH?
>
If inside a firewall, plain old Telnet is good.

I use telnet for extreme hacking, webmin for basic admin tasks and samba
to edit web pages - the web server is a samba mount point

MRTG is a usefull addition to monitor networks stats, and other things
too if you want.

Debeian etch platform.
> thanks
>
> See Ya
> (when bandwidth gets better ;-)
>
> Chris Eastwood
> Photographer, Programmer Motorcyclist and dingbat
> blog: http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/
>
> please remove undies for reply

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.setup, in article
<fG3bk.86$c13.43@read4.inet.fi>, obakesan wrote:

>after a long absence from IT I'm starting to set up a server here at
>home for operations as a database and www server. I'm intending to
>connect it to the LAN but not allow it outside to play.

OK - LAN verses Internet is a function of the firewall on your router
or masquerading box (don't forward packets to the ports on the server
where your database or web server live), and MAY also be influenced
by the configuration of the server on your unnamed Linux distribution.

>I was thinking of setting it up to run with no screen / keyboard to
>save space in the apartment (and keep it out of the way).

That's fine.

>Can anyone advise me if its better to try and get X going on the
>'client' computers and connect to the server via X or just use SSH?

-rw-rw-r-- 1 gferg ldp 287028 Mar 31 2003 Remote-Serial-Console-HOWTO
-rw-rw-r-- 1 gferg ldp 38522 Dec 7 2001 Remote-X-Apps

Rather old documents, but still valid. Do you _need_ X on the server?
Does administration of the hardware, database, or web pages _require_
a GUI interface/tool, or is this just a convenience that you believe
will allow you to do everything needed without knowing the commands?

The headless systems in my home are all _primarily_ administered and
used "over the net" from other systems on the LAN. They ALSO have a
serial cable to an 'A/B/C/D' switch and that connects to one of the
workstations, so that I can get into the systems in the event of a
network problem. None of my servers even have X installed as I'm
comfortable enough at the command line. (Three of the four are old
systems that otherwise lack the horsepower to run X, but can serve
files as fast as the LAN bandwidth allows.)

Old guy

obakesan <pellicleundies@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I was thinking of setting it up to run with no screen / keyboard to save space
> in the apartment (and keep it out of the way).
>
> Can anyone advise me if its better to try and get X going on the 'client'
> computers and connect to the server via X or just use SSH?

I run a similar setup here. My servers have no screen and keyboard, and
I access them via telnet from client machines.

I have no X components on the server.

My servers provide web services, wiki documentation, usenet news feed,
internet relay chat, sql database services, and all sorts of stuff, all
without X, so SSH would work just fine for you.

Regards,

Mark.

--
Mark Hobley,
393 Quinton Road West,
Quinton, BIRMINGHAM.
B32 1QE.

>If inside a firewall, plain old Telnet is good.

Why encourage bad habbits? ssh works fine.

--
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.

Hal Murray wrote:
>> If inside a firewall, plain old Telnet is good.
>
> Why encourage bad habbits? ssh works fine.
>
So does Telnet.

Even over a wide are link. The ONLY issue is that telnet sends passwords
in plain text. Who really is listening outside of your LAN?
or inside it..

Hal Murray <hal-usenet@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net> wrote:
> Why encourage bad habbits? ssh works fine.

SSH encrypts the network traffic. You might not want encrypted traffic
on an internal LAN. This may make network packet monitoring difficult
with conventional tools, and produces a decryption overhead on the
client machines (unless the network cards provide hardware level cryptography).

Mark.

--
Mark Hobley,
393 Quinton Road West,
Quinton, BIRMINGHAM.
B32 1QE.

Mark Hobley wrote:
> Hal Murray <hal-usenet@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net> wrote:
>> Why encourage bad habbits? ssh works fine.
>
> SSH encrypts the network traffic. You might not want encrypted traffic
> on an internal LAN. This may make network packet monitoring difficult
> with conventional tools, and produces a decryption overhead on the
> client machines (unless the network cards provide hardware level cryptography).
>
> Mark.
>
ssh is a campus tool, when there are loads of nerdy geeks on a repeated
(not switched) network who fire up packet sniffers to see if they can
hack the servers..

It is protection against a problem that has almost ceased to exist.

I use telnet right across the Internet. The chances that someone could
both sniff the password and spoof my calling IP address and be bothered
to actually DO it are negligible.