Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-10 > #186429 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-08-01 16:11 +0200 |
| Last post | 2025-08-14 16:00 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 113 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-01 16:11 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2025-08-01 10:28 -0400
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-01 18:19 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-01 12:33 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2025-08-01 13:49 -0400
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-01 21:11 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection NY <me@privacy.net> - 2025-08-02 16:29 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-02 18:26 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-01 20:45 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-02 15:58 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-02 16:35 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2025-08-01 16:43 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-01 20:47 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-01 09:02 -0700
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-01 09:13 -0700
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-01 18:41 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-01 20:49 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-01 12:06 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-01 20:54 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-01 15:26 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Michael Logies <logies@t-online.de> - 2025-08-06 15:58 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-06 18:41 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-06 12:35 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-01 17:32 -0700
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> - 2025-08-02 12:15 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-02 15:57 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-02 15:46 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-02 17:30 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-02 18:32 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-02 19:53 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-02 17:53 -0400
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-03 19:43 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2025-08-03 20:41 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-04 11:55 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2025-08-04 23:22 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-05 20:24 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-04 12:57 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-03 23:10 -0700
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-04 15:37 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-02 15:54 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-02 16:40 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-02 19:56 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-03 20:36 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-03 18:11 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-04 11:34 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-04 14:06 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-06 08:59 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> - 2025-08-03 21:07 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-04 11:24 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> - 2025-08-04 10:50 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-06 09:01 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> - 2025-08-07 11:39 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-07 15:19 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Zaidy036 <Zaidy036@air.isp.spam> - 2025-08-04 16:25 -0400
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-06 09:03 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> - 2025-08-06 20:55 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> - 2025-08-06 21:00 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-07 15:22 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-07 15:20 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> - 2025-08-08 11:44 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-09 12:59 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-09 13:17 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-10 18:01 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-10 18:12 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-10 19:33 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-10 19:08 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-11 09:46 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-11 14:07 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-11 08:19 -0500
OT: Microsoft product (and service) naming (was: Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-11 14:36 +0100
Re: OT: Microsoft product (and service) naming "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-20 11:06 +0200
Re: OT: Microsoft product (and service) naming "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-10-20 10:48 +0100
Re: OT: Microsoft product (and service) naming "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-20 13:36 +0200
Re: OT: Microsoft product (and service) naming Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-10-20 12:36 +0000
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-10 19:57 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-10 20:42 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-11 09:44 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-11 14:09 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-11 08:53 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-11 15:53 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-11 13:03 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-11 19:31 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-11 21:11 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-12 02:00 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-13 21:21 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> - 2025-10-19 23:36 -0700
OT: ageing (was: Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-10-20 08:45 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-11 20:20 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-08-12 12:35 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-12 14:16 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-08-12 21:11 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-12 17:24 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-08-13 05:10 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-12 15:29 -0400
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Michael Logies <logies@t-online.de> - 2025-08-11 22:40 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-11 21:06 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-11 20:35 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-12 09:01 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-12 13:23 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-13 03:45 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-13 21:28 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-13 17:09 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-14 13:27 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-11 21:03 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-11 20:39 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection rsutton <rsutton43@comcast.net> - 2025-08-12 07:49 -0400
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection wasbit <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com> - 2025-08-13 09:26 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-13 11:39 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-13 12:13 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-13 18:33 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-13 12:52 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection rsutton <rsutton43@comcast.net> - 2025-08-14 08:22 -0400
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-14 16:00 +0200
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Michael Logies <logies@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-06 15:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rrn69ktuegu45lq0qmouskbt9cc8en60nt@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #186438 |
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 12:06:55 -0500, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote: >https://remotedesktop.google.com It is very reliable and fast. Regards M.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-06 18:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mfhetnF3a34U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #186555 |
On Wed, 06 Aug 2025 15:58:55 +0200, Michael Logies wrote: > >https://remotedesktop.google.com > It is very reliable and fast. It's Google. I tried RustDesk today and my impression was that it's faster than TeamViewer. It also didn't let me perform administrator functions without the other party's permission which imo is a good thing. -- s|b
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-06 12:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vdsu25m9jk0u.dlg@v.nguard.lh> |
| In reply to | #186556 |
s|b <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> Michael Logies wrote:
>
>> VanguardLH said:
<Missing attribution line omitted by sb.>
>>
>>> https://remotedesktop.google.com
>>
>> It is very reliable and fast.
>
> It's Google. I tried RustDesk today and my impression was that it's
> faster than TeamViewer. It also didn't let me perform administrator
> functions without the other party's permission which imo is a good
> thing.
"Switch from ... to RustDesk for a secure and reliable remote desktop
experience with your own self-hosted servers."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
While the OP was interested in VNC variants, and those require a VNC
server at one end, I doubt the OP wants to set up his own self-hosted
server.
https://github.com/rustdesk/rustdesk-server/releases/tag/1.1.14
"This is the open-source version, not the Pro version that you purchased
a license for."
https://rustdesk.com/docs/en/self-host/rustdesk-server-oss/
Rustdesk does not appear an end-user friendly, simple, and quick
solution, but oriented to a larger deployment. Looks like it takes a
lot more effort to setup, configure, and troubleshoot than other
remoting solutions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | T <T@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-01 17:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <106jmau$nkus$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #186429 |
On 8/1/25 7:11 AM, Fokke Nauta wrote: > Hi all, > > At home I have my own W10 pc and two other W10 pc's and two W11 laptops. > To have a remote connection with the other pc's and laptops I use > RealVNC Viewer. U used it for years, but since last year I have to pay > for it (about 250 euro's per year). It's limited for just a few > connections. I'm not happy with it. It's too expensive, and sometimes it > can't make a connection. > Can you advice me an alternative that is cheaper and works well? > Many thanks in advance. > > With kind regards, > Fokke Nauta Have you though of using Ultra VNC? It is free and not a lot different from Real VNC. http://www.uvnc.com/downloads/ultravnc.html WARNING: Lots of JUNKWARE !!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-02 12:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.42f803c5dbabc1c39896b7@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #186460 |
In article <106jmau$nkus$2@dont-email.me>, T@invalid.invalid says... > >Have you though of using Ultra VNC? It is >free and not a lot different from Real VNC. > >http://www.uvnc.com/downloads/ultravnc.html > >WARNING: Lots of JUNKWARE !! > > I use UVNC to help friends when I can't use Quick Assist. I install the server (as a service) on their machine, but don't open a firewall port on their machine. Instead, I open a port on my machine (using port translation so the open port isn't any hint about what application it will get routed to) and then only run the "listening client" when I need to. I give the friend my IP address (or my DDNS name), and talk them through right-clicking the server icon in their system tray and picking "add new client". Works a treat. My only reservation about UVNC is that like a lot of free sites it "rents out" webpage space in an indiscriminate way, and several of the "Download Now" buttons you'll see are actually nothing to do with UVNC. But it's not that difficult for an experienced eye to spot which is the genuine link. Where necessary, I'll download the server and post it on Google Drive or OneDrive for my friend to download safely, and send them a link. Otherwise, I've used UVNC without any problems for many years, and would certainly recommend it. -- Phil, London
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-02 15:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mf6jpeF8tfbU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #186468 |
On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 12:15:56 +0100, Philip Herlihy wrote: > I use UVNC to help friends when I can't use Quick Assist. I've use UltraVNC in the past, but then switched to TeamViewer, because it was simply easier to let the other party download QuickSupport and tell me the ID and password over the phone. I've downloaded QuickSupport to their desktop and placed it in the right corner, same everywhere. I recently stumbled upon RustDesk which is similar, so I'll give that a go in the future. -- s|b
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-02 15:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <106l8b9$um6o$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #186472 |
On 2025/8/2 14:57:8, s|b wrote: > On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 12:15:56 +0100, Philip Herlihy wrote: > >> I use UVNC to help friends when I can't use Quick Assist. > > I've use UltraVNC in the past, but then switched to TeamViewer, because > it was simply easier to let the other party download QuickSupport and Yes, I was going to mention that when Philip mentioned what he installed on their machine. the thing is, TeamViewer make it hard enough for _me_ to find the QS download on their website - I give those I'm wanting to help the direct link to it when I find it (or actually send them - or put it somewhere and point them to it - the executable). > tell me the ID and password over the phone. I've downloaded QuickSupport > to their desktop and placed it in the right corner, same everywhere. Yes; it's much easier for them to use than the full TeamViewer, which gives them the ability (which they don't need) to control remotely, as well as be controlled. Why TV make it so hard to find, I don't know. (At least, that's my opinion - and it may have changed; it's a while since I've been to their site.)> > I recently stumbled upon RustDesk which is similar, so I'll give that a > go in the future. > It puzzles me why so many of these solutions involve a third-party server; surely direct connection between the machines would be simpler, and cheaper for those providing the solution. I think there _is_ something built into Windows, from 7 or 10 on, but the existence of all these alternatives suggest it's not very good; I'm surprised something better direct (not needing a remote server) hasn't appeared after all this time.Of course, all these require a system at least _somewhat_ working at both ends. The people I used TeamViewer most with are blind, where it's a godsend being able to see their screen: they _can_ detect what's on screen via software called a screenreader, but as you can imagine, directing someone around via that is no fun. Last time I had to lead them though a Macrium restore, we used Skype - between my PC, and their iPhone, propped up so it could see the little monitor they keep for when sighted folk visit to help them with computer things! It was propped up sideways, and kept falling flat - and, she'd not used a mouse before (or since, I imagine; a mouse is of little use to a blind person, they only have it for visitors). [Yes, I'm sure you can use Macrium from the keyboard only, but I'd not learnt the keystrokes. (Still haven't.)] We succeeded though! (Using a third-party server - with logins - _does_ have the advantage that it gives you a sort of "address book" of the people you have helped in the past, so if _you_ have to use a different machine to what you used in the past, you don't have to scrabble around to find the "addresses" of the people you've helped before. But I'm sure a direct version could be devised to use a file you could keep on a - I was going to say floppy, but I suppose USB stick these days.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "To YOU I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition." - Woody Allen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-02 17:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mf6p7qF9rc1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #186477 |
On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 15:46:01 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote: 8< selective snip >8 > It puzzles me why so many of these solutions involve a third-party > server; surely direct connection between the machines would be simpler, IIRC you can create that server yourself with RustDesk. I remember something about using Docker and place that somewhere online (for a fee). There's YT vids about it. -- s|b
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-02 18:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <106li47$167vp$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #186481 |
On 2025/8/2 16:30:7, s|b wrote: > On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 15:46:01 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote: > > 8< selective snip >8 >> It puzzles me why so many of these solutions involve a third-party >> server; surely direct connection between the machines would be simpler, > > IIRC you can create that server yourself with RustDesk. I remember > something about using Docker and place that somewhere online (for a > fee). There's YT vids about it. > I just don't understand (I don't really know a lot about the subject) why you need a third-party server (or whatever you call it) at a third location _at all_ (whether at e. g. TeamViewer HQ, or somewhere _you_ pay to run); I don't understand why it can't be done with just a direct connection between the two computers. Obviously you have to set up the connection in the first place, and this (IP addresses, intermediate servers, etc.) is likely to change _between sessions_; maybe this setting-up _is_ the hard part. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Bother," said Pooh, as Eeyore sneezed the crack all over Owl.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-02 19:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2uv1mlxglf.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #186487 |
On 2025-08-02 19:32, J. P. Gilliver wrote: > On 2025/8/2 16:30:7, s|b wrote: >> On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 15:46:01 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >> >> 8< selective snip >8 >>> It puzzles me why so many of these solutions involve a third-party >>> server; surely direct connection between the machines would be simpler, >> >> IIRC you can create that server yourself with RustDesk. I remember >> something about using Docker and place that somewhere online (for a >> fee). There's YT vids about it. >> > I just don't understand (I don't really know a lot about the subject) > why you need a third-party server (or whatever you call it) at a third > location _at all_ (whether at e. g. TeamViewer HQ, or somewhere _you_ > pay to run); Two reasons. Because most people are on IP addresses that can change on a whim: instead you use a login at some database which doesn't change. Because the intermediary solves the problem of having to configure the router. It is the same basic problem when doing video conferencing, you need a server, at least for initiating the connection. Possibly in all cases the server is not involved after the initial phase. The server would not be needed if we used IPv6 instead. > I don't understand why it can't be done with just a direct > connection between the two computers. Obviously you have to set up the > connection in the first place, and this (IP addresses, intermediate > servers, etc.) is likely to change _between sessions_; maybe this > setting-up _is_ the hard part. > -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-02 17:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <106m1dd$19ua0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #186487 |
On Sat, 8/2/2025 1:32 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote: > On 2025/8/2 16:30:7, s|b wrote: >> On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 15:46:01 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >> >> 8< selective snip >8 >>> It puzzles me why so many of these solutions involve a third-party >>> server; surely direct connection between the machines would be simpler, >> >> IIRC you can create that server yourself with RustDesk. I remember >> something about using Docker and place that somewhere online (for a >> fee). There's YT vids about it. >> > I just don't understand (I don't really know a lot about the subject) > why you need a third-party server (or whatever you call it) at a third > location _at all_ (whether at e. g. TeamViewer HQ, or somewhere _you_ > pay to run); I don't understand why it can't be done with just a direct > connection between the two computers. Obviously you have to set up the > connection in the first place, and this (IP addresses, intermediate > servers, etc.) is likely to change _between sessions_; maybe this > setting-up _is_ the hard part. > It's a convenience feature. It makes it easier to discover the address of the endpoints. If you were writing your own software, you'd send emails back and forth between the participants when setting up a session. Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-03 19:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mf9ldlFogvsU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #186477 |
On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 15:46:01 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote: > the thing is, TeamViewer make it hard enough for _me_ > to find the QS download on their website - I give those I'm wanting to > help the direct link to it when I find it (or actually send them - or > put it somewhere and point them to it - the executable). I bookmarked this URL, because I always have the same problem: <https://www.teamviewer.com/en/download/portal/windows/> -- s|b
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-03 20:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <co209k1hjrgqge91tln8211om2njgok40a@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #186477 |
On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 15:46:01 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: >It puzzles me why so many of these solutions involve a third-party >server; surely direct connection between the machines would be simpler, >and cheaper for those providing the solution. As others have said, it's primarily to be able to work around a nearly universal problem that would otherwise occur when establishing a connection across the Internet. The target PC is quite often behind a router. That router commonly performs Network Address Translation (NAT) and it usually has a stateful firewall (Stateful Packet Inspection, SPI). NAT translates between the WAN IP address of the router and the LAN IP address of the target PC, and SPI is responsible for blocking unsolicited inbound traffic, which would include this remote connection. Add a requirement to configure port forwarding, as well. The router can be manually configured to allow a remote connection, but the addition of the third party server makes all of that moot. >I think there _is_ >something built into Windows, from 7 or 10 on, but the existence of all >these alternatives suggest it's not very good; Remote Desktop client is included in every version of Windows from XP onward, while Remote Desktop server/host is only included in the Pro and Enterprise versions. The problem with RD isn't that it's not very good, it's simply that it's not always available, such as when you want to connect to a PC running a Home version. Home can be a client, but not a server. I've been using RD as a permanent method of accessing a headless PC on my LAN for well over 10 years now, maybe closer to 20 years. I think it works just fine for how I use it. I could use it over the Internet, which is something I've done just to see how well it works, but my normal use case is strictly within my LAN.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-04 11:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <106q3i5$200m1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #186517 |
On 2025/8/4 2:41:39, Char Jackson wrote: > On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 15:46:01 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> > wrote: > >> It puzzles me why so many of these solutions involve a third-party >> server; surely direct connection between the machines would be simpler, >> and cheaper for those providing the solution. > > As others have said, it's primarily to be able to work around a nearly > universal problem that would otherwise occur when establishing a > connection across the Internet. The target PC is quite often behind a > router. That router commonly performs Network Address Translation (NAT) > and it usually has a stateful firewall (Stateful Packet Inspection, > SPI). NAT translates between the WAN IP address of the router and the > LAN IP address of the target PC, and SPI is responsible for blocking > unsolicited inbound traffic, which would include this remote connection. Blocking unsolicited is good, but in these cases, we're talking about _wanted_ traffic. > Add a requirement to configure port forwarding, as well. The router can > be manually configured to allow a remote connection, but the addition of > the third party server makes all of that moot. I guess getting round the problem of getting the connection set up in the first place is a significant part.> >> I think there _is_ >> something built into Windows, from 7 or 10 on, but the existence of all >> these alternatives suggest it's not very good; > > Remote Desktop client is included in every version of Windows from XP > onward, while Remote Desktop server/host is only included in the Pro and > Enterprise versions. The problem with RD isn't that it's not very good, > it's simply that it's not always available, such as when you want to > connect to a PC running a Home version. Home can be a client, but not a > server. Ah, so it _isn't_ really part of (the Home versions of) Windows.> > I've been using RD as a permanent method of accessing a headless PC on > my LAN for well over 10 years now, maybe closer to 20 years. I think it > works just fine for how I use it. I could use it over the Internet, > which is something I've done just to see how well it works, but my > normal use case is strictly within my LAN. > Interesting, thanks. (How well _did_ you think it worked?) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Don't hit the keys so hard, it hurts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-04 23:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2u039k1ehhg8v0eur0eaedvcib2q5pnq7k@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #186527 |
On Mon, 4 Aug 2025 11:55:01 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: >On 2025/8/4 2:41:39, Char Jackson wrote: >> On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 15:46:01 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> It puzzles me why so many of these solutions involve a third-party >>> server; surely direct connection between the machines would be simpler, >>> and cheaper for those providing the solution. >> >> As others have said, it's primarily to be able to work around a nearly >> universal problem that would otherwise occur when establishing a >> connection across the Internet. The target PC is quite often behind a >> router. That router commonly performs Network Address Translation (NAT) >> and it usually has a stateful firewall (Stateful Packet Inspection, >> SPI). NAT translates between the WAN IP address of the router and the >> LAN IP address of the target PC, and SPI is responsible for blocking >> unsolicited inbound traffic, which would include this remote connection. > >Blocking unsolicited is good, but in these cases, we're talking about >_wanted_ traffic. Wanted by the human, yes, but not wanted by the router's firewall that sits out front and acts as a gatekeeper. Until you configure that firewall, and likely the firewall on the PC itself, it's all going to be treated as 'unwanted', which means it'll be blocked. With a third party server in the mix, there is no unsolicited inbound traffic at either end of the connection since the two PC endpoints have each established an _outbound_ connection to the common server. The PC firewalls don't have any issues with that. >> Add a requirement to configure port forwarding, as well. The router can >> be manually configured to allow a remote connection, but the addition of >> the third party server makes all of that moot. > >I guess getting round the problem of getting the connection set up in >the first place is a significant part.> >>> I think there _is_ >>> something built into Windows, from 7 or 10 on, but the existence of all >>> these alternatives suggest it's not very good; >> >> Remote Desktop client is included in every version of Windows from XP >> onward, while Remote Desktop server/host is only included in the Pro and >> Enterprise versions. The problem with RD isn't that it's not very good, >> it's simply that it's not always available, such as when you want to >> connect to a PC running a Home version. Home can be a client, but not a >> server. > >Ah, so it _isn't_ really part of (the Home versions of) Windows.> >> I've been using RD as a permanent method of accessing a headless PC on >> my LAN for well over 10 years now, maybe closer to 20 years. I think it >> works just fine for how I use it. I could use it over the Internet, >> which is something I've done just to see how well it works, but my >> normal use case is strictly within my LAN. >> >Interesting, thanks. (How well _did_ you think it worked?) It worked fine, if you just think about the Remote Desktop connection itself, limited to the ability to log into a remote PC and do everything you could do as if you were sitting right there in front of it. I wasn't comfortable with some of the security aspects, however, including the requirement to punch a permanent hole in the router's firewall and configure port forwarding there, as well as punching a permanent hole in the PC's firewall. Normally, you'd also want to keep track of the target IP address, but in my case it hasn't changed since I moved to this area over 6 years ago.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-05 20:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <106tloq$2davo$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #186547 |
On 2025/8/5 5:22:34, Char Jackson wrote: > On Mon, 4 Aug 2025 11:55:01 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> > wrote: [] >> Blocking unsolicited is good, but in these cases, we're talking about >> _wanted_ traffic. > > Wanted by the human, yes, but not wanted by the router's firewall that > sits out front and acts as a gatekeeper. Until you configure that > firewall, and likely the firewall on the PC itself, it's all going to be > treated as 'unwanted', which means it'll be blocked. That makes sense, thanks. [] >>> Remote Desktop client is included in every version of Windows from XP [] >> Ah, so it _isn't_ really part of (the Home versions of) Windows.> >>> I've been using RD as a permanent method of accessing a headless PC on >>> my LAN for well over 10 years now, maybe closer to 20 years. I think it >>> works just fine for how I use it. I could use it over the Internet, >>> which is something I've done just to see how well it works, but my >>> normal use case is strictly within my LAN. >>> >> Interesting, thanks. (How well _did_ you think it worked?) > > It worked fine, if you just think about the Remote Desktop connection > itself, limited to the ability to log into a remote PC and do everything > you could do as if you were sitting right there in front of it. I wasn't > comfortable with some of the security aspects, however, including the > requirement to punch a permanent hole in the router's firewall and > configure port forwarding there, as well as punching a permanent hole in > the PC's firewall. Normally, you'd also want to keep track of the target Understood. > IP address, but in my case it hasn't changed since I moved to this area > over 6 years ago. > -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf I remember a lot of questions on a vocalist forum about the problems singing "There is a balm in Gilead" without making it sound like a security alert. - Linda Fox in UMRA, 2010-11-19
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-04 12:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <29g6mlxf64.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #186517 |
On 2025-08-04 03:41, Char Jackson wrote: > On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 15:46:01 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> > wrote: > >> It puzzles me why so many of these solutions involve a third-party >> server; surely direct connection between the machines would be simpler, >> and cheaper for those providing the solution. > > As others have said, it's primarily to be able to work around a nearly > universal problem that would otherwise occur when establishing a > connection across the Internet. The target PC is quite often behind a > router. That router commonly performs Network Address Translation (NAT) > and it usually has a stateful firewall (Stateful Packet Inspection, > SPI). NAT translates between the WAN IP address of the router and the > LAN IP address of the target PC, and SPI is responsible for blocking > unsolicited inbound traffic, which would include this remote connection. > Add a requirement to configure port forwarding, as well. The router can > be manually configured to allow a remote connection, but the addition of > the third party server makes all of that moot. It took years for protocols to work this well using a third party server. I remember that at the start it did not always work. Skype was maybe the first one to massively use this, and initially it did not work that well. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | T <T@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-03 23:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <106pisk$1umai$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #186472 |
On 8/2/25 6:57 AM, s|b wrote: > I recently stumbled upon RustDesk Do you know of any third parties that host Rust Desk for you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-04 15:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mfbrc6F55sjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #186519 |
On Sun, 3 Aug 2025 23:10:28 -0700, T wrote: > > I recently stumbled upon RustDesk > Do you know of any third parties that host > Rust Desk for you? I saw a YT vid where a guy used Docker to install a RustDesk server and then he placed it somewhere in the cloud. It was a paid service. Can't find the vid atm. <https://rustdesk.com/docs/en/self-host/rustdesk-server-oss/docker/> This explains how to run your own server, but then you'll have to do some portforwarding. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49EfaA5vRbY> This explains how to set up a server on a cloud instance. -- s|b
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-02 15:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mf6jjlF8tfbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #186460 |
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 17:32:29 -0700, T wrote: > WARNING: Lots of JUNKWARE !! What junkware? -- s|b
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-10
csiph-web