Timbuktu for Mac OS server?

[niek]

I have two servers both running Mac OS. I remote access them with Timbuktu.

I am planning to move to Mac OS X server when it arrives. But is it possible to access Mac OS X server remotely?

I know telnet works. But is there a graphical solution? Is it possible to access Mac OS X server with an X window emulator?

------------------
Niek

[Graeme]

I believe there were complete X11 distributions (both server and clients) for NeXTStep and Rhapsody, so there will probably be one compatible with Mac OS X Server available shortly, if not already.

You might also want to look into VNC, an open-sourced, freeware product that does pretty much what Timbuktu does, except that it is supported on virtually any platform you can think of. The server side for Mac OS is still in development (and the beta releases are quite slow and buggy), but Mac OS X Server's UNIX underpinnings should provide an easy port of the server to that platform. (I hope that wasn't too confusing!)

Under UNIX, VNC operates as an X server that you display on another machine (anywhere on the internet!) running the VNC client. I had a single VNC session running on Linux for a month and a half, connecting to it from my Mac and NT computers, as well as various computers at work. It's really quite an amazing product.

For more information on VNC, check out http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/ .

-g

[dcoyle]

I am hoping that OS X as well as the Server edition will have remote access/multiuser capability. I've never seen Timbuktu but am guessing it is a sort of pcAnywhere kludge that takes over (or reroutes) screen and keyboard i/o to/from a remote connection.

Where I work, I still remember getting excited that our Win 3.1 machines were going to be upgraded to NT. I had heard NT was "industrial strength" and multiuser - turns out that NT is much faster and more stable, but the multiuser part consists of being able to log into different accounts one person at a time and only from the keyboard. Our other machines are 500 MHz Alpha servers running VMS. These are much, much more powerful but the X-Windows interface is kind of klunky (you've actually got a couple of choices of desktop). However, you can throw several desktops out to any machines with capable X-servers and at the same time any number of clients can simultaneously Telnet in. This capability makes life incredibly easy. For anybody who has never seen anything other than the one machine/one user paradigm, it's almost impossible to understand how powerful a true multiuser system is.

I think Apple could really steal a march on NT if they were to provide, as niek suggests, a remote graphical interface. The one thing I would add is that there should be multiuser capability. Ideally, the Server edition could be set up for as many accounts as the Admin wants while the consumer/workstation edition would be limited to say 5 or 10 simultaneous users. Besides the obvious school and small office scenarios, it would be cool to log in to your Mom's or friend's Mac to fix problems or allow an Apple tech to log in and troubleshoot your Mac over the internet.

Dan

[debohun]

Timbuktu is anything but a kludge. It is a beautiful product that I use exactly as Dan suggests, to provide remote tech support and training. It is cross platform and is NetMeeting compatible. My one frustration is that Netopia (Farallon) does a poor job of marketing it. Apple should liscense it, or buy it outright, and install it on every Mac they ship.

------------------
Stephen Bone
University of Miami

[dcoyle]

I'm sorry that I didn't make myself clear. I am not saying or mean to imply products like Timbuktu, pcAnywhere, Laplink, etc. are kludgy. My reference was to the operating systems that they are used on. Windows NT is particularly frustrating because it is billed as an industrial strength Unix replacement; however it takes third-party products to provide remote access and configuration capabilities. The fact that they have to take over the only operator I/O allowed by the OS (meaning the screen, mouse, and keyboard) is a shortcoming of the OS. These products are indeed remarkable.

My wish would be for remote access to an OS X machine that gave you a graphical interface to the machine without forcing the current user(s) to stop work. This, in addition to a Telnet terminal capability, would make these an administrator's dream. While it would be possible to have a proprietary solution, the ideal would be an X-windows interface cleverly designed to make it look like the Mac desktop since X-windows is the de facto standard. Let your Windows-using friends log into a Mac via an X-session and listen to them wonder why NT can't do that.

A point Stephen seemed to be making is that sometimes you actually do want to take over the desktop for training, etc. so that you can tell someone over the phone what you are doing and they can watch the mouse, menus, program launching, typing, etc. This doesn't have to be mutually exclusive with what I am talking about, merely another option.

Hopefully, Apple will be asking what people want and try to provide it. They will have to offer more than NT or Windows 2000, not just match features.

Dan

[niek]

From an other WebBoard

---------------------------------------------

OS-X server has a utility called NXHost (It's a feature of Display Postscript Window Server). It allows you to launch an application on one machine but display it on another. You can therefore do anything remotely -- from running the installer to running your word processor. For a long time, I would run my mailer app on a NeXT slab and display it on Windows NT box (which has OpenStepEnterprise installed). Other times, I did not have an application compiled for the native architecture, so all I did was find a machine on the network that could run it and NXHost it to the machine that I was working on.

This feature is going away in OSX-client.

raptor

------------------
Niek

[Rob Mohns]

This feature is going away in OSX-client.

I also read it was going away in OS X Server. I don't suppose anyone can confirm/deny?

I use Timbuktu to control a rack full of servers, and while this isn't quite required if OS X Server runs beautifully, I have had to work with the server from other parts of the country in the past, and might in the future. Some sort of remote-control is a must for OS X Server.

my worry is that Apple might decide it's a "TPO" (third party opportunity), then no third party take advantage of the opportunity.


Rob Mohns
Systems Manager, Jobs for the Future, Boston, Massachusetts www.jff.org (http://www.jff.org)

[Mark J Hershenson]

As I recall, NXHost is no longer available, and has not been so since DR1. The DPS graphics system was altered, and the required pieces for NXHost were no longer available. Or they took out the necessary code. Whatever it is, it's no longer there.

[niek]

Tennon is planning Xten for Mac OS X server.

Xten is an X window server.

I think this allows you to control a remote server.

------------------
Niek

[bsavage]

NXHost is definitely going away. It depends on Display Postscript which Adobe charges a lot for and refuses to support anymore. As a result Apple is rewriting the entire Graphics portion of the OS.

I'm sure others will pickup on the possibility to provide a third party solution. It will be possible to craft an even nicer solution than Timbuktu because the hooks will be there ('true' multitasking, etc.)

------------------
~Bob

[Pr0ZAC]

Timbuktu will have to take some pretty impressive steps! Microsoft and Citrix have made a fairly impressive Thin Client Server. I'v been using Terminal Server with the citrix overlays. Its working great so far.

[dcoyle]

Check out http://www.apple.com/macosx/screenshots.html and particularly the screen shot called "Workspace Manager". Apple talks about multi-user access to OS X server. Unfortunately they don't say anything about remote access. I hope they don't mean multi-user in the NT sense where user #1 logs off, gets out of the chair, user #2 sits down and logs in. Big deal.

As PrOZAC notes, MS is starting to get into the game with their terminal server option. I don't know much about it, but I guess it's going to be standard with Win2000. Every brand of Unix has X servers and clients as well as Telnet terminal access. I think Apple has to do them one better.

I am wondering about an X-Windows interface that is automatically invoked with a remote login. Every app, including the Workspace Manager/Finder, would write to whatever their display API is (I've heard Quickdraw and DPS are going to be supplanted with some sort of PDF compatible format?). Any remote connection would be served via X. I imagine it sounds easier than what it is, but whatever it takes I think it would be worth it.

My experience with X-Windows is that there is a lot of potential, but the lack of consistency and the lack of any real effort to put a GUI on top of the really arcane stuff makes its usefulness questionable. It generally turns out to be a convenient way to get a remote command window.

The relevance to the Mac from my standpoint is administration. The two examples I am familiar with are: 1.) NT, where as mentioned above, you kick the user off either physically or remotely with pcAnywhere, et al, log in as Administrator, and do your thing with all the neat NT control panels, registry editor, etc. For all practical purposes this may as well be a DOS machine for all the "multiuser" hype is worth; or 2.) genuine multiuser systems where you log on remotely into an administrative account (the users don't even know you are there) and use an arcane CLI to take care of business.

If Apple were to offer the best of both worlds, meaning remote "simultaneous multiuser" connectins (too bad that term has to be redefined to mean something different than what MS means) with a consistent graphical interface to the system, anybody could be and admin. This is just the kind of thing Apple has always stood for and would be a boon to small shops, families, schools, etc. Kind of like thinking different.

I don't administer a Mac shop, so I'm not aware of the headaches or advantages of the Mac platform as far as administration goes. What I do know is that the typical NT, Unix, VMS, etc. network could be a lot easier to maintain and Apple has a real opportunity here. I personally hope they show the rest of the world how it should be done