X server

[Metgod]

Okay, I was pretty sure I knew this question until someone contradicted me.
Granted I don't know X well (heh) I can't be sure. It's not like it was a discussion
about IRC or one of the many things I like and know about...

So here goes...

I was pretty certain the answer is NO...

Does an X server have to be open for a LOCAL user to execute programs in front of
his X session ? I.e., X server doesn't have to be up to run Xchat...It just doesn't make
sense that the answer is it doesn't have to be loaded since the X server is definitely used to run programs remotely
via an X CLIENT..

I know for sure Maddy and Neek would know this.. haha, I'm pretty sure I know but you know me
I get curious and wonder if I could be wrong if it's something I don't know very well ...
I also know that X11 is extremely vulnerable to attacks, hehe which makes it yet again
not reasonable to keep it open OR at least not filter it through the gateway... heh

[Uneek]

Sorry Met... actually, the answer is somewhat of a yes, if I'm understanding the question correctly. Think of it this way. When you run X Windows, including locally, you are running an X server. Even with the standard VGA server. Some apps will only run on X, so it requires the X Server to be running.

Not sure if that's what you were asking or not, though...

[Metgod]

Yeah, I gotcha..

I think I was looking at it a COMPLETELY way..  I didn't see that running the OS (X)
meant that it was a server. It was more of just running an OS just like any other OS.
For instance, Windows by itself isn't a server and just running it doesn't make it a server. And
further more, you don't need it to run as a server to run apps.

At any rate, I know you should always block it at the gateway :)

There were a couple reasons I was thinking it wasn't a server but it doesn't matter...
And honestly, I'm too [well, too something] to even know how to describe it or bring it to my mind..

I've been wrong before and I'll be damned if I won't be wrong again !! :)
No biggy as sometimes people have a different perspective, and apparently I wasn't looking at the
picture correctly.

[Metgod]

heh.. ahh well... I know there are things that make sense but won't come to me, and
I know we all make mistakes and all help each other out.. heh.. thanks Neek..

I was looking at it a different way and went a bit too far heh..

[wilnix]

killall is fun.

Wilnix

[Zerored]

But, does anyone know of any good unix (not linux) books out there?

[Syxx]

But, does anyone know of any good unix (not linux) books out there?

[wilnix]

there are a ton of unix and linux books out there..check the website that have consumer ratings and go from there...

wilnix

[Spirit]

Okay, I was pretty sure I knew this question until someone contradicted me.
Granted I don't know X well (heh) I can't be sure. It's not like it was a discussion
about IRC or one of the many things I like and know about...

So here goes...

I was pretty certain the answer is NO...

Does an X server have to be open for a LOCAL user to execute programs in front of
his X session ? I.e., X server doesn't have to be up to run Xchat...It just doesn't make
sense that the answer is it doesn't have to be loaded since the X server is definitely used to run programs remotely
via an X CLIENT..

I know for sure Maddy and Neek would know this.. haha, I'm pretty sure I know but you know me
I get curious and wonder if I could be wrong if it's something I don't know very well ...
I also know that X11 is extremely vulnerable to attacks, hehe which makes it yet again
not reasonable to keep it open OR at least not filter it through the gateway... heh

Alright, so there are certain operationgs that use XFree86, per a their libraries (I think XChat uses GTK+), so yeah you're going to need to have an X server on there, doesn't need to be XFree86 but it needs to have the GTK+ Libraries on there.

On the other hand, you can have a remote X Session there is alot of software out there for it, and XFree86 isn't as vulnerable as most people say it is. I've ran several controlled attacks on the latest version of XFree86 and suprisingly most of the older versions vulnerabilities are cleared up (most notably the DoS Vulnerability).

[Metgod]

You know what's the funniest thing about this all is .. I don't even know what I was really asking. And I don't think I was very clear either (I was more of  a mess and more mentally fucked up than I am now). I do know that one can forward an X session.. I think the real thing I was after was a matter of semantics (i.e., define 'server'). And indeed,it is an a server, yet it's also a client.

But I do know that, one can forward an X session and did back then too. As far as security, well you never know.. I would never allow an X session past the border router, but that's me... Of course, DoS/DDoS attacks are not the only concern, but I'm not surprised (or maybe I'm just glad) that the holes are filled up. It's been a long while afterall.

What was I on about again ?

Oh well...

Cheers,
Metty

BTW: Welcome to the board Spirit !

[Link3]

another thing about the X in a network is that it produces a lot of packets, and consumes bandwidth.

But the X is designed in a modular way, that allows any application to act like a client to the X server, even using TCP/IP Sockets. From this point of view, X is much more superior than other GUI's.

When it comes to a desktop environment, though, it can be irritating slow , because of the way it was designed.

Conclusion: CLI 0wnz *  

[Metgod]

hehe

cli is what I use on all my linux boxes.. I think I have one machine with X, but otherwise it's only text (and half the time I don't use X since I use linux to code and that's about it).

You can gain so much more control in command line (with pipes and all the other features of text based shells).

X is kludgy at best anyway, and has serious problems in some hardware. I guess they do pretty good considering it's all on their free time, though. Can't expect them to spend all their time doing it. What's everyone's favourite window manager ? Mine is probably Gnome ... for several reasons, plus it has a neat name.

[Link3]

I prefer KDE for WM.. but i have also used some others, less known, of which i don't remember even their names  

enlightment? fluxbox? my memory is not strong enough..  

[Metgod]

blackbox perhaps ?

[Uneek]

Ewwweee!!! KDE is the suck!!! I hate it! But I always say just cause I hate something doesn't mean it doesn't work for someone else. I say use what works for you... I prefer Fluxbox... or even Gnome on occasion simply because of everything it supports...