141–150 of 176 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just have one word for you: TightVNC. That's what made me uninstall RustDesk.
Why not TigerVNC? https://tigervnc.org/ > TigerVNC was originally based on the (never-released) VNC 4 branch of TightVNC. It seems to be popular, that’s why I’m asking.
Funny thing is that the document where they'd explain their reasoning to fork TightVNC returns 404.
RustDesk works so much better and easier than vnc and other vendored solutions. No need to open ports, no need for vpn, it just works, no account BS, no vendor lock in BS. I have used RustDesk for years, also run my own lookup/relay server so I do not need to rely on the public lookup server While everything else gets enshitified RustDesk just keeps getting better
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just have one word for you: TightVNC. That's what made me uninstall RustDesk.
I have three words for you: read the docs. If you're experiencing a bug that pegs you're CPU, fair enough. But RustDesk is video-stream based (in many formats), while TightVNC is image(-region) based. This is actually similar to why you watch movies in, say, H.264 rather than Motion JPEG¹. ¹=similar, not same.
No, thanks.
As they say: "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". So I used both applications and TightVNC is just a lot better, particularly in constrained remote VMs.
Docs are cheap, performance is what matters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ideally using ipv6 without NAT, but yeah hole punching or quic address discovery like iroh does works too
and how do you discover the ipv6 address? memorize it? many ISPs don't listen to informational documents listing all the problems with random dynamic prefixes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of my primary use cases for tailscale/VPN is that I can happily run stuff (grafana, gitea, etc) and not have to be panicked about monitoring for CVEs - I serve it all over HTTPS but I don't want to put it on the public internet if I don't need to.
I just have envoy proxy with the oauth + jwt filter in front of those services. Envoy does the oidc flow with pocket-id so I can use passkeys for authN. Envoy validates the resulting token and does authorization via ACL. Envoy then sends an authorization bearer jwt with the oidc id_token jwt to the backend (for example grafana). Grafana parses and validates the jwt and sets claims as userinfo (username, groups, email…
I probably won't allow everything through it (eg: postgres, clickhouse etc can stay on tailscale), but I've been stumbling into use cases where I want to share things with friends or colleagues, and I don't want to put them on my tailnet.
And since the paid pro version does have authentication, I think it's unlikely to ever show up in the free version.
Is there a reason to use this over something like Sunshine/Moonlight?
RustDesk still does not support encrypted connections when self hosting: https://github.com/rustdesk/rustdesk/issues/3714
I think you bring up a fine point. Most applications have encryption built in and transparent to the user. While technical IT people in charge of infrastructure will not make this assumption, it is not unreasonable, at the same time, for small business / individual users, to not understand or know of this limitation. VNC does not, for example, and you need to set up port forwarding through ssh. X2Go does....but I don…
Another valid alternative is Xpra, and it does support Wayland too - but doesn't reach feature parity with X11. Like RustDesk, Xpra is similarly feature-rich and mature, it too can take advantage of SSH tunnels, SOCKS or HTTPS proxies etc.
And then there's TeamViewer and AnyDesk - both of which are paid, with a free tier for evaluating or personal use - RustDesk is younger, but feature-wise they're quite similar.
Finally, you could set up wireguard that will happily encrypt your connection with very little overhead - regardless of your chosen remote desktop solution.
Is there a reason to use this over something like Sunshine/Moonlight?
From personal experience, Moonlight is pretty slow and high latency. Even Microsoft's RDP is better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That said, we welcome community contributions! Many users express interest or share feedback—but very few take the next step and submit a pull request. If you’re able to help, your PR would be greatly appreciated! hate this. "we don't want this on principle... but we would accept it if you did it yourself!" just say you don't feel like it! don't act like it's a bad thing except for when somebody else does it for yo…
> hate this. "we don't want this on principle... but we would accept it if you did it yourself!" just say you don't feel like it! don't act like it's a bad thing except for when somebody else does it for you, that's just dishonest. What is there to hate here, I don't understand? They first provide a concise overview of the current situation. Then how they personally feel about it. Finally they leave it open and end i…
Then they say you should contribute it. It's mixed messaging, it seems like they're trying to hide "won't implement this" behind "this is a bad idea in general". They should just say they won't implement it and that they're open to contributions, not that it's a bad idea and that they "strongly" recommend against it, but that maybe if someone opens a PR anyway they'll consider it.