From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 09/08/2025 20:17, VanguardLH wrote:

Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> wrote:

I have scaled RealVNC down to two clients, which is much cheaper. I
now use it for the laptops.

Since you pay for it, some support is included. They have their FAQs
and help pages, their web-based forums, and a web form to submit an
online request for help. Sometimes FAQs and forums aren't sufficient.

It has been so long since I last using VNC that, I think, when I long
ago tested several variant RealVNC was free back then.

Indeed, it was free for a long time.

Free is nice,
but support can be critical when you need it. I don't care for subscriptionware, though: $8.95/mo, billed annually ($99/yr) for an Essentials license with 1 user over 3 devices.

Indeed, that's what I have now.

They probably went to
that model to afford providing support; else, a one-time purchase with lifetime support has diminishing ROI over time; however, once you have everything working, often you no longer need support, but then you're
paying yearly for support you no longer need.

That's true,but I didn't have another choice.

Free is nice, but sometimes paid is better. Over decades of using free Usenet, I eventually decided to pay for it but wanted something cheap
(10 euro/yr, ~$12 USD/yr) with high up-time. I tried LibreOffice for
over a year, but there were too many workarounds or missing functions,
so I went back to MS Office, but got the standalone 2021 Pro Plus for
real cheap ($35) from a known, trustworthy, and reliable seller.

I use MS Home and Office 2016. I'm happy with it.

I used
to pay for eM Client (I gave up on Thunderbird after 6 trials with the
last one lasting 6 months), but now I'm back to MS Outlook (the client,
not their webapp).

I use Thunderbird for many years, and I'm happy with it!

Sometimes free can be great. I have lots of
freeware. Sometimes payware is a better choice. The effort you expend
in setting up, debugging, and maintaining freeware can be offset by
something that works straight out of the box. However, I'd rather pay
for a one-time lifetime license, but I don't see RealVNC offers one for personal use.

Depends if you like challenges. For me, I'd probably go with a
different and freeware VNC variant, especially only for only
intranetwork hosts. Getting secure external access requires much more
setup. For me, the wifi hosts not working would be a challenge, and I'm stubborn, er, determined enough to make it work. Wifi adds more
complication to the networking than wired Ethernet connections.

TightVNC has their mailing lists (https://www.tightvnc.com/lists.php) to
get help. UltraVNC has their forums (https://forum.uvnc.com/). I can't
say if either would prove fruitful to resolve problems since I've never visited there. I'd first prefer newsgroups,

So do I

secondly web forums, and
lastly mailing lists, but help is help. However, maybe you already paid
for the RealVNC subscriptionware license,

Yes, when I had 6 clients. It was a lot of money. It's valued to june
2026. Than I will close down to 2 clients.

and figure you're done with
all the hassle.

Thanks!

Fokke

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2025/8/10 17:1:12, Fokke Nauta wrote:

[]

I use MS Home and Office 2016. I'm happy with it.

[]

I use Office 2003 (with the patches to let it read the .???x variants).
It works fine under W10-64, and I've yet to find _anything_ I want that
needs any features in later versions (and yet to find anything that
needs me to save in one of the .???x formats, either). [In fact, I
probably would have been happy with Office 97, 1998 ("Burgundy")
edition; the only difference between that and 2003 that I actually _use_
is more flexible cell alignment in Word tables. But I don't know if that
would run on later Windows.]

(Not sure what "MS Home" is; if the _flavour_ of Windows, yes, I'm using
that too.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

When I'm good, I'm very good. But when I'm bad - I'm better! (Mae West)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 10/08/2025 19:12, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/8/10 17:1:12, Fokke Nauta wrote:

[]

I use MS Home and Office 2016. I'm happy with it.

[]

I use Office 2003 (with the patches to let it read the .???x variants).
It works fine under W10-64, and I've yet to find _anything_ I want that
needs any features in later versions (and yet to find anything that
needs me to save in one of the .???x formats, either). [In fact, I
probably would have been happy with Office 97, 1998 ("Burgundy")
edition; the only difference between that and 2003 that I actually _use_
is more flexible cell alignment in Word tables. But I don't know if that would run on later Windows.]

(Not sure what "MS Home" is; if the _flavour_ of Windows, yes, I'm using
that too.)

When I open my account, Product Information Office, it says Product
activated etc, Microsoft Home and Business 2016.

Fokke
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2025-08-09 20:17, VanguardLH wrote:

TightVNC has their mailing lists (https://www.tightvnc.com/lists.php) to
get help. UltraVNC has their forums (https://forum.uvnc.com/). I can't
say if either would prove fruitful to resolve problems since I've never visited there. I'd first prefer newsgroups, secondly web forums, and
lastly mailing lists, but help is help. However, maybe you already paid
for the RealVNC subscriptionware license, and figure you're done with
all the hassle.

I have found chatgpt good for diagnosis of computer problems. In any
case, the reply is instantaneous.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2025/8/10 18:33:38, Fokke Nauta wrote:

On 10/08/2025 19:12, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/8/10 17:1:12, Fokke Nauta wrote:

[]

I use MS Home and Office 2016. I'm happy with it.

[]

I use Office 2003 (with the patches to let it read the .???x variants).

[]

(Not sure what "MS Home" is; if the _flavour_ of Windows, yes, I'm using
that too.)

When I open my account, Product Information Office, it says Product activated etc, Microsoft Home and Business 2016.

Fokke

Ah, I understand. When I do Help|About in Word, I get "...Part of
Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003". I'm pretty sure I did
actually buy it - I think it might have been through an employee scheme.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Thu, 7 Aug 2025 15:20:49 +0200, Fokke Nauta wrote:

I now use TightVNC for the two local W10 pc's. It didn't work with the
two wifi W11 laptops.

I've tried RustDesk a few days ago and found it more responsive than TeamViewer. I'm not sure, but I think you can set it up, so the ID and
password of the guest devices (server) stay the same. You can create a
list of favourites and you can 'discover peers' which I think is
searching for clients/guests within the home network.

I'm using the portable version, but it can also be installed for better results. I'll be advising family and friends to use RustDesk instead of TeamViewer.
--
s|b
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 10/08/2025 20:42, s|b wrote:

On Thu, 7 Aug 2025 15:20:49 +0200, Fokke Nauta wrote:

I now use TightVNC for the two local W10 pc's. It didn't work with the
two wifi W11 laptops.

I've tried RustDesk a few days ago and found it more responsive than TeamViewer. I'm not sure, but I think you can set it up, so the ID and password of the guest devices (server) stay the same. You can create a
list of favourites and you can 'discover peers' which I think is
searching for clients/guests within the home network.

I'm using the portable version, but it can also be installed for better results. I'll be advising family and friends to use RustDesk instead of TeamViewer.

I now use RealVNC for the two laptops. I scaled it down to two clients,
which is much cheaper.

Fokke
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 10/08/2025 20:08, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/8/10 18:33:38, Fokke Nauta wrote:

On 10/08/2025 19:12, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/8/10 17:1:12, Fokke Nauta wrote:

[]

I use MS Home and Office 2016. I'm happy with it.

[]

I use Office 2003 (with the patches to let it read the .???x variants).

[]

(Not sure what "MS Home" is; if the _flavour_ of Windows, yes, I'm using >>> that too.)

When I open my account, Product Information Office, it says Product
activated etc, Microsoft Home and Business 2016.

Fokke

Ah, I understand. When I do Help|About in Word, I get "...Part of
Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003". I'm pretty sure I did
actually buy it

Fully agree.

- I think it might have been through an employee scheme.

?

Fokke

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2025/8/11 8:46:22, Fokke Nauta wrote:

On 10/08/2025 20:08, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

[]

Ah, I understand. When I do Help|About in Word, I get "...Part of
Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003". I'm pretty sure I did
actually buy it

Fully agree.

- I think it might have been through an employee scheme.

?

Some scheme whereby my then employer had made some arrangement whereby employees could obtain Office at a beneficial price (might have involved downloading, and a key, rather than getting it on an actual medium, I
can't remember).

I think there was a later one where it was even free, but you had to
delete your home copy if you left employment with that employer. (I
wonder how many did!)

As to _why_ the employer did this, I think it wasn't entirely
altruistic: they wanted employees to be familiar with the same
version(s) they were using at work.>

Fokke

John
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

We're done for the night. I'm off for a cup of tea and some crystal meth.
Only joking. I've had quite enough tea for one day.
- Victoria Coren Mitchell, quoted in RT 2017/10/7013
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2025/8/10 19:42:45, s|b wrote:

On Thu, 7 Aug 2025 15:20:49 +0200, Fokke Nauta wrote:

I now use TightVNC for the two local W10 pc's. It didn't work with the
two wifi W11 laptops.

I've tried RustDesk a few days ago and found it more responsive than TeamViewer. I'm not sure, but I think you can set it up, so the ID and password of the guest devices (server) stay the same. You can create a
list of favourites and you can 'discover peers' which I think is
searching for clients/guests within the home network.

I'm using the portable version, but it can also be installed for better results. I'll be advising family and friends to use RustDesk instead of TeamViewer.

Is RustDesk free? Or free-for-personal-use (but has a commercial
version, so there's the same danger of being cut of because they think
you're commercial as can happen with TeamViewer?)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

We're done for the night. I'm off for a cup of tea and some crystal meth.
Only joking. I've had quite enough tea for one day.
- Victoria Coren Mitchell, quoted in RT 2017/10/7013
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> wrote:

J. P. Gilliver wrote:

Fokke Nauta wrote:

When I open my account, Product Information Office, it says Product
activated etc, Microsoft Home and Business 2016.

Ah, I understand. When I do Help|About in Word, I get "...Part of
Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003". I'm pretty sure I did
actually buy it

Fully agree.

- I think it might have been through an employee scheme.

"Home and Business" is an edition of Microsoft Office. Each edition has
a different recipe of components and features.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office#Editions

There are also Plus sub-editions, like the Microsoft Office 2021
Professional Plus that I purchased ($30) as a standalone version with a lifetime license (doesn't expire after 1 year as with subscriptions to
MS 365). The Microsoft Office 365 subscriptions were renamed to
Microsoft 365. I don't remember there were any changes to the
subscriptions, just a name change.

You can see the Office Home & Business edition listed at:

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/buy/compare-all-microsoft-365-products
https://www.licencedeals.com/blogs/licencedeals-info-corner/microsoft-office-editions-comparison

Microsoft keeps moving the target on the names of their products. Oh
yes, Outlook new (yes, the lowercased "new' is part of the product name) replaced Mail (which had several incarnations across Windows versions). Microsoft keeps moving the target on the names of their bundles, too.
There are product names now which differ from what they were called
before. Gee, all I have to do is change the name plate on my car, and
presto chango I have a new car. Changing names is how Microsoft hopes
to con users something is new.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2025/8/11 14:19:6, VanguardLH wrote:

[]

Microsoft keeps moving the target on the names of their products. Oh
yes, Outlook new (yes, the lowercased "new' is part of the product name) replaced Mail (which had several incarnations across Windows versions). Microsoft keeps moving the target on the names of their bundles, too.
There are product names now which differ from what they were called
before. Gee, all I have to do is change the name plate on my car, and
presto chango I have a new car. Changing names is how Microsoft hopes
to con users something is new.

I couldn't agree more. Didn't help when they had (maybe still have) a
hosting etc. service/company called Outlook, as well as software called
Outlook (and Outlook Express, too).

They once had an office suite called Works, which included a word
processor, a spreadsheet, and I think one or two others (something
graphical maybe?). Not only was it substantially cheaper than Office
(which was so expensive you could buy the individual parts, like Word
and Excel, separately at that time), but it also was much less demanding
in resource requirements. It did most of what the average home user
required. Towards the end of its existence, it came with Word rather
than its original WP, since WP was the part most users used. I'm pretty
sure Works was finally killed off because it was eating into the
profits/sales of the full Office.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

We're done for the night. I'm off for a cup of tea and some crystal meth.
Only joking. I've had quite enough tea for one day.
- Victoria Coren Mitchell, quoted in RT 2017/10/7013
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

s|b wrote:

Fokke Nauta wrote:

I now use TightVNC for the two local W10 pc's. It didn't work with the
two wifi W11 laptops.

I've tried RustDesk a few days ago and found it more responsive than
TeamViewer.

Is RustDesk free?

Yes, for personal-use only (https://rustdesk.com/pricing); however,
their comparison page doesn't mention the limitations. The other
editions mention the number of logged in users, and number of managed
devices, but no mention of a limit for the free plan. While their free
version is OSS, their other versions are not.

Teamviewer supplies their own servers. No setup by you. Rustdesk has
you setup a self-hosted server just like you have to setup a VNC server.
I did not find a list of public Rustdesk servers you could use, but then
there would be a privacy and security issues.

https://www.reddit.com/r/rustdesk/comments/1bjpyso/whats_the_difference_between_the_free_version_and/

You can find user discussions at:

https://github.com/rustdesk/rustdesk/discussions

Even if you don't participate, lurking can pull out some gems of info.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2025/8/11 14:53:3, VanguardLH wrote:

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

s|b wrote:

[]

I've tried RustDesk a few days ago and found it more responsive than
TeamViewer.

Is RustDesk free?

Yes, for personal-use only (https://rustdesk.com/pricing); however,

Thanks.

their comparison page doesn't mention the limitations. The other
editions mention the number of logged in users, and number of managed devices, but no mention of a limit for the free plan. While their free version is OSS, their other versions are not.

Teamviewer supplies their own servers. No setup by you. Rustdesk has
you setup a self-hosted server just like you have to setup a VNC server.

Is that on your own machine?
[]
Rest of your post starred as keep for future reference, thanks.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

their comparison page doesn't mention the limitations. The other
editions mention the number of logged in users, and number of
managed devices, but no mention of a limit for the free plan. While
their free version is OSS, their other versions are not.

Teamviewer supplies their own servers. No setup by you. Rustdesk
has you setup a self-hosted server just like you have to setup a VNC
server.

Is that on your own machine?

I've used Teamviewer in the past. You don't setup a server. They
provide that. It is only to coordinate handshaking between the endpoint clients. Once they are connected, the server is no longer involved.

For Rustdeak, just change their fluffy terminology of self-hosted server
to just server, just like you have to do with a VNC server. You have to provide your own server, just like with VNC. In that case, you have to consider punching a hole in your router's firewall, and the firwall on
your server host, use a porting rule in the router to forward all
external access to just one of your intranet hosts (the ones running a
server), and add protection to the server. You also probably won't know
what is the current IP address of your intranet VNC server host (well,
for the WAN IP address of your NAT router) unless you get static IP
addresses from your ISP. To have a memorable host name for your WAN IP,
you can use a DDNS service. You have the DNS updater client run on any
of your intranet hosts, it reports the current WAN IP address to your
account at the DDNS, and uses that lookup when you do an external
connect. If you only do remoting from within your intranetwork, you
don't need DDNS, but you'll need to configure your router to assign
static IP addresses to your intranet host based on their MAC address.

I have never used Rustdesk. Teamviewer works by the endpoint hosts
making outbound HTTPS connections to the server. Firewalls, by default,
pass out HTTP traffic without interference, and accept inbound connects
to those outbound-initiated connection (i.e., stateful packet
inspection). No having to punch holes in firewalls, define port
forwarding, or employ DDNS to get a memorable host name to your network
(WAN IP address of your router). Both ends make outbound HTTP connects
to their already existing server that handshakes the endpoints to each
other, and then drops out of the circuit. If Rustdesk uses the same
scenario (both endpoints act as clients connecting via HTTP a server to facilitate the handshaking for the endpoints to find each other) then
Rustdesk may be as easy as using Teamviewer. However, YOU have to setup
the Rustdesk server, just like you have to setup a VNC server.

Maybe sb can elucidate on how easy it was to setup his own Rustdesk
server. Maybe they automate the setup to make it easy, but there are
major differences between setting up a server for intranet access only,
or setting up a server for external access into your intranetwork.

https://rustdesk.com/docs/en/self-host/
"If you are using RustDesk you should have your own RustDesk Server,
..."
"Support is available via our Discord for OSS and email for Pro."

The free OSS version has you using Discord to get help. YUCK EXTREME!
E-mail support is available, but only if you pay for the Pro version.
They make noise how they are OSS, but that feature disappears once you
move beyond their free version.

I did happen upon:

https://www.reddit.com/r/rustdesk/comments/13b0jz6/extremely_confusing_instructions/

which mentions "one may use the free Rustdesk public server". That
looks to emulate Teamviewer's config, so maybe the endpoints use HTTP
clients to connect to the rendezvous server to initiate handshaking
between the endpoints. I did not find just what is the hostname or IP
address for their rendezvous (public) server. Maybe that is encoded as
a default in the Rustdesk clients, and you have to change to point at
your own self-hosted Rustdesk server, if you want to do it that way.

https://rustdesk.com/docs/en/client/
Usage
Once installed (or run as a temporary executable) RustDesk will connect
to the Public servers.

So, they have a public rendezvous server (maybe more than one to provide
load balancing since they used the plural of "server"). I found a forum
thread where rs-ny.rustdesk.com was mentioned, but that may just a
frontend server to redirect to other servers. I thought:

https://github.com/rustdesk/rustdesk/#free-public-servers

might list those, but nope. One user noted an nslookup on
rs-ny-rustdesk.com return an IP of 108.61.171.103. Today I got
209.250.254.15. 108.61.171.103 is in Germany versus mine whose
geolocation is in the Netherlands. Like with Tor and VPN that can have multiple exit nodes, could be their public free server changes to what
it redirects.

According to user reports, Rustdesk has had to up their server count, or otherwise improve the capacity of their free server due to increased
load probably due to increased popularity. However, during their
upgrades users have reported outages in the service. To see uptime of
their various servers, you can visit:

https://rustdesk.github.io/uptime/

Click on one, like for the rendezvous server, to see the weekly uptime
stats. For me doing that now, the weekly stat (which is actually a
daily report over a 1-month span) reported 26.38% uptime. That is very
poor if you rely on their public server instead of hosting your own.

BTW, I learned more about Rustdesk by having to research it more. No, I
don't use it, and never have used it. With Teamviewer, all I had to do
was install their client on each endpoint host no matter if it was an
intranet or accessed across the Internet. Actually, for Teamviewer, you
don't have to install anything as you can use web browsers at each
endpoint to do a remote connect. Up to you to choose between their
desktop client or web app. However, I don't recall if you get to use
their web client with their free service tier.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2025/8/11 19:3:33, VanguardLH wrote:

[a very detailed and in theory helpful answer to my questions about
RustDesk, and the subject in general]

I'm afraid you lost mr pretty early on - which is no criticism of your
answer, more of my ageing ability to absorb.

I fear, if I need remote desktop in the future, I'll probably be back on TeamViewer - or one of the other similar. Or, possibly, nothing.

BTW, I learned more about Rustdesk by having to research it more. No, I don't use it, and never have used it. With Teamviewer, all I had to do
was install their client on each endpoint host no matter if it was an intranet or accessed across the Internet. Actually, for Teamviewer, you don't have to install anything as you can use web browsers at each
endpoint to do a remote connect. Up to you to choose between their
desktop client or web app. However, I don't recall if you get to use
their web client with their free service tier.

I don't remember seeing it, but then I probably would have avoided it
anyway, as if there's a browser-centred way of doing something and an alternative, I tend to choose the latter - I don't like
browser-everything. Much as I don't like everything (in life!) being
done via "smart"phone.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 08:53:03 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

Teamviewer supplies their own servers. No setup by you. Rustdesk has
you setup a self-hosted server just like you have to setup a VNC server.

I saw a YouTube vid about that days ago and IIRC you can choose: either
you use their servers or you set one up yourself. All I know is it works
the same as TeamViewer. There's no setting up a server. You download the portable EXE and run it. The other party does the same and provides an
ID and password, so you can connect with it.
--
s|b
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 13:03:33 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

I've used Teamviewer in the past. You don't setup a server. They
provide that. It is only to coordinate handshaking between the endpoint clients. Once they are connected, the server is no longer involved.

For Rustdeak, just change their fluffy terminology of self-hosted server
to just server, just like you have to do with a VNC server. You have to provide your own server, just like with VNC.

Nope. Simply open the (portable) EXE, other party does the same and
provides ID and password, so you can connect with it. If you don't trust
the RustDesk servers, then you can choose to set up your own server.
--
s|b
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 19:31:43 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

I fear, if I need remote desktop in the future, I'll probably be back on TeamViewer - or one of the other similar. Or, possibly, nothing.

I've been using TeamViewer for ages, but at one point it accused me of commercial use or I left the connection open for too long. Recently, I
used RustDesk and my impression is that it's faster than TeamViewer.

Setting it up is a no brainer: you download the portable EXE and run it.
The other party does the same and provides you with an ID and password,
exactly as in TeamViewer. RustDesk is also a bit smaller than
TeamViewer's QuickSupport.

RustDesk also allows you to set up favourites, so I'm assuming ID and
password stay the same.
--
s|b
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

I'm afraid you lost mr pretty early on - which is no criticism of your >answer, more of my ageing ability to absorb.

With Google Chrome Remote Desktop, which is free and fast, you are up
and running within 5-10 min. I don`t understand, why more complex
should be better for an average user. Teamview has been annoying with
its nag screens in the free version in the past..

For a professional like me, RDP over a private VPN offers some
advantages, but is more complex to set up.

Regards

M.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2025/8/11 20:11:8, s|b wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 19:31:43 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

I fear, if I need remote desktop in the future, I'll probably be back on
TeamViewer - or one of the other similar. Or, possibly, nothing.

I've been using TeamViewer for ages, but at one point it accused me of commercial use or I left the connection open for too long. Recently, I

I had that once, or possibly twice. They reactivated me (or whatever the
right word is), but it took a few days.

used RustDesk and my impression is that it's faster than TeamViewer.

Setting it up is a no brainer: you download the portable EXE and run it.
The other party does the same and provides you with an ID and password, exactly as in TeamViewer. RustDesk is also a bit smaller than
TeamViewer's QuickSupport.

Ah. If you read the VLH post to which I was replying, you'll see why I
was losing the will to live thinking about it. If it's really as simple
as you say, I was worrying unnecessarily.>

RustDesk also allows you to set up favourites, so I'm assuming ID and password stay the same.

Presumably those are stored on their server.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

In the words of my grandpa, a woman is as old as she looks. A man is
never old until he stops looking.
- Alice Apfel, designer, 1921-2024 (102)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

s|b <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

I've been using TeamViewer for ages, but at one point it accused me of commercial use or I left the connection open for too long. Recently, I
used RustDesk and my impression is that it's faster than TeamViewer.

That could be due to where you are, and where is the public rendezvous
Rustdesk server to which you connect. I found rs-ny.rustdesk.com
mentioned, and my traceroute to it shows a huge jump in delay most
likely caused by having to go over the undersea cable to connect the
hosts across the pond.

tracert rs-ny.rustdesk.com
...
9 21 ms {myISP}
10 21 ms ae8.cr9-chi1.ip4.gtt.net [63.141.223.245]
11 115 ms ae2.cr2-ams13.ip4.gtt.net [141.136.106.174]
12 114 ms ip4.gtt.net [154.14.36.78]
13 * Request timed out.
14 * Request timed out.
15 115 ms 209.250.254.15.vultrusercontent.com [209.250.254.15]

Even though the nodes on each side of the pond are with gtt.net, their
own network spans the ocean across their data centers. GTT is global.
The added latency impinges on every packet across the pond.

You could do a traceroute on the Teamview rendezvous server to see if
you going the other way across the pond.

By the way, vultrusercontent.com resolves to 127.0.0.1. Odd it resolves
to localhost. Likely they don't want you directly using that hostname
since it is a frontend to redirect to their farm of actual servers.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

s|b <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 13:03:33 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

I've used Teamviewer in the past. You don't setup a server. They
provide that. It is only to coordinate handshaking between the endpoint
clients. Once they are connected, the server is no longer involved.

For Rustdeak, just change their fluffy terminology of self-hosted server
to just server, just like you have to do with a VNC server. You have to
provide your own server, just like with VNC.

Nope. Simply open the (portable) EXE, other party does the same and
provides ID and password, so you can connect with it. If you don't trust
the RustDesk servers, then you can choose to set up your own server.

With your setup, you are using their rendezvous server to connect the
endpoint hosts. Self-hosted servers means you create your own
rendezvous server. Upon first reading, I thought Rustdesk required you
to setup your own self-host server simply because they didn't make it
obvious they had publicly accessible rendezvous servers (well, I only
found one, and it appears they have a problem with the ever increasing
workload on their "demo" server).

As I noted using their own stats page, Rustdesk's public rendezvous
server does not have high reliability (aka high uptime) per their own
specs.

https://rustdesk.github.io/uptime/history/rust-desk-public-rendezvous-server

26% uptime seems high to you? 114 ms latency (sometimes up to 300 ms)
seems low to you?

I suspect if you paid for their closed-source versions that you get to
connect to better servers with better load balancing and redundancy (aka
a larger server farm).
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

s|b <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 08:53:03 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

Teamviewer supplies their own servers. No setup by you. Rustdesk has
you setup a self-hosted server just like you have to setup a VNC server.

I saw a YouTube vid about that days ago and IIRC you can choose: either
you use their servers or you set one up yourself. All I know is it works
the same as TeamViewer. There's no setting up a server. You download the portable EXE and run it. The other party does the same and provides an
ID and password, so you can connect with it.

Yep, through their public rendezvous server. Neither client specifies
the IP address of the other endpoint host. The server takes care of
getting the IP addresses for the endpoint hosts, because each had to
connect to the server, and TCP mandates a host getting a connection know
the IP address of the host connecting to it. The ID is recorded at the
server, so it know which connection from which host to join to a
connection from the other host.

You are not directly connecting between the endpoint hosts. They
connect to the server, the server facilitates the handshaking between
the endpoints, and then the server is out of the circuit while the
endpoints talk directly to each other.

Even in your simple Rustdesk (or Teamviewer) setup, you are still using
a server.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2025/8/12 2:35:18, VanguardLH wrote:

[]

As I noted using their own stats page, Rustdesk's public rendezvous
server does not have high reliability (aka high uptime) per their own
specs.

https://rustdesk.github.io/uptime/history/rust-desk-public-rendezvous-server

26% uptime seems high to you? 114 ms latency (sometimes up to 300 ms)
seems low to you?

I suspect if you paid for their closed-source versions that you get to connect to better servers with better load balancing and redundancy (aka
a larger server farm).

1 in 4 chance of it working sounds pretty useless - unless (a) its
uptime distribution is spread, i. e. it's up for say 1 second in 4, or
maybe as long as 5 seconds in 20 AND (b) it's only needed to help the
two ends establish connection. If it needs to be up throughout your
connection, then 26% isn't usable, and the latency would also come into consideration.

So - _does_ the server need to be there throughout your connection, or
just to establish it? And if the latter, and it's only up 26% of the
time, how long do you usually have to wait for it?

(For that matter, does a TeamViewer connection use the server all the
time or just initially? The fact that they know how long you stay
connected [and allegedly decide you're commercial if you stay on too
long] suggests it is a continuous thing, though that could be just it
looks say once an hour, minute, whatever to see if you still are.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Apologies to [those] who may have been harmed by the scientific
inaccuracies in this post. - Roger Tilbury in UMRA, 2018-3-14
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2025-08-12 02:20, VanguardLH wrote:

That could be due to where you are, and where is the public rendezvous Rustdesk server to which you connect. I found rs-ny.rustdesk.com
mentioned, and my traceroute to it shows a huge jump in delay most
likely caused by having to go over the undersea cable to connect the
hosts across the pond.

This interpretation in the last sentence is wrong, see below ...

tracert rs-ny.rustdesk.com
...
9 21 ms {myISP}
10 21 ms ae8.cr9-chi1.ip4.gtt.net [63.141.223.245]
11 115 ms ae2.cr2-ams13.ip4.gtt.net [141.136.106.174]
12 114 ms ip4.gtt.net [154.14.36.78]
13 * Request timed out.
14 * Request timed out.
15 115 ms 209.250.254.15.vultrusercontent.com [209.250.254.15]

Whereas for me in Scotland, using a mobile broadband connection (because landlines around here are next to useless, and there is no FTTx in
wildest Sutherland):

11:04:08 D:\Temp>tracert rs-ny.rustdesk.com

Tracing route to rs-ny.rustdesk.com [209.250.254.15]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms [anonymised]
2 23 ms 19 ms 19 ms [anonymised]
3 * * * Request timed out.
4 67 ms 90 ms 73 ms 172.26.19.1
5 * * * Request timed out.
6 * * * Request timed out.
7 86 ms 69 ms 87 ms 172.26.24.93
8 * * * Request timed out.
9 71 ms 94 ms 83 ms 172.26.3.150
10 91 ms 90 ms 102 ms 149.11.22.122
11 * * * Request timed out.
12 105 ms 71 ms 83 ms be2592.ccr42.lon13.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.60.245]
13 106 ms 98 ms 99 ms be12488.ccr42.ams03.atlas.cogentco.com [130.117.51.42]
14 101 ms 104 ms 98 ms be2154.rcr22.ams06.atlas.cogentco.com [130.117.50.206]
15 111 ms 114 ms 98 ms 149.6.0.227
16 * * * Request timed out.
17 * * * Request timed out.
18 114 ms 94 ms 97 ms 209.250.254.15.vultrusercontent.com [209.250.254.15]

Trace complete.

Again, see below ...

Even though the nodes on each side of the pond are with gtt.net, their
own network spans the ocean across their data centers. GTT is global.
The added latency impinges on every packet across the pond.

You could do a traceroute on the Teamview rendezvous server to see if
you going the other way across the pond.

By the way, vultrusercontent.com resolves to 127.0.0.1. Odd it resolves
to localhost. Likely they don't want you directly using that hostname
since it is a frontend to redirect to their farm of actual servers.

'The pond' is crossed by optical fibres, which by definition carry
signals at the speed of light for that medium, so, at the Atlantic's
widest point of 4,600kms, signals will take 4,600/[between 300,000 (best
case of a vacuum) and 61/0.000350 = 174,286 (worst case of a deliberate slowing down as a 'speed bump' described in the link below)] = between
0.015s theoretical best case and 0.026s as a practical worst case, so
between 15ms and 26ms. Even in the worst case, these delays are no
worse than the fastest records in the traces above, and significantly
less than most of them, so the delays are caused by other things, such
as how the intervening systems are configured and/or how busy they are
at the time.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/80043/how-fast-does-light-travel-through-a-fibre-optic-cable

"Some real-world data: The IEX stock exchange routes their traffic
through 61km of wound up fiber as a speed bump for traders, which
introduces 350 -|s delay. See exchange.iex.io/about/speed-bump and youtu.be/d8BcCLLX4N4?t=159. The minimal delay from that should be 61km/c
= 204 -|s.They do not specify where the additional 146 -|s delay comes
from (e.g. reduced speed of light inside the fiber, longer travel
distance, maybe even delay from the electric components that send and
receive the signal). rCo Socowi Commented Oct 27, 2022 at 20:04"
--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: www.macfh.co.uk

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 8/11/2025 9:09 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/8/10 19:42:45, s|b wrote:

On Thu, 7 Aug 2025 15:20:49 +0200, Fokke Nauta wrote:

I now use TightVNC for the two local W10 pc's. It didn't work with the
two wifi W11 laptops.

I've tried RustDesk a few days ago and found it more responsive than
TeamViewer. I'm not sure, but I think you can set it up, so the ID and
password of the guest devices (server) stay the same. You can create a
list of favourites and you can 'discover peers' which I think is
searching for clients/guests within the home network.

I'm using the portable version, but it can also be installed for better
results. I'll be advising family and friends to use RustDesk instead of
TeamViewer.

Is RustDesk free? Or free-for-personal-use (but has a commercial
version, so there's the same danger of being cut of because they think
you're commercial as can happen with TeamViewer?)

I have recently switched to free nomachine for all my systems:
Windows 10 (fully up to date)
Windows 11 (fully up to date)
Anduin Linux(fully up to date)
Arch Linux (fully up to date)
Fedora 41 (fully up to date)
Ubuntu 24.04 LTS (fully up to date)
Ubuntu 25.04 LTS (fully up to date)
Ubuntu 2510 LTS (fully up to date)
Mint 21-3 (fully up to date)
Mint 22 (fully up to date)

nomachine was easy to install and has given me no problems. I only use
it on my home lan: no internet access even though they support it. YMMV
but it works perfectly for my use case and I haven't found any 'edge' cases. Richard
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2025/8/12 2:35:18, VanguardLH wrote:

[]

As I noted using their own stats page, Rustdesk's public rendezvous
server does not have high reliability (aka high uptime) per their own
specs.

https://rustdesk.github.io/uptime/history/rust-desk-public-rendezvous-server >>
26% uptime seems high to you? 114 ms latency (sometimes up to 300 ms)
seems low to you?

I suspect if you paid for their closed-source versions that you get to
connect to better servers with better load balancing and redundancy (aka
a larger server farm).

1 in 4 chance of it working sounds pretty useless - unless (a) its
uptime distribution is spread, i. e. it's up for say 1 second in 4, or
maybe as long as 5 seconds in 20 AND (b) it's only needed to help the
two ends establish connection. If it needs to be up throughout your connection, then 26% isn't usable, and the latency would also come into consideration.

So - _does_ the server need to be there throughout your connection, or
just to establish it? And if the latter, and it's only up 26% of the
time, how long do you usually have to wait for it?

(For that matter, does a TeamViewer connection use the server all the
time or just initially? The fact that they know how long you stay
connected [and allegedly decide you're commercial if you stay on too
long] suggests it is a continuous thing, though that could be just it
looks say once an hour, minute, whatever to see if you still are.)

No, the rendezvous server is just to handle the initial handshaking
between the endpoint hosts.

With VNC, you can use a DDNS service to give a hostname to the WAN IP of
your router, so you don't have to figure out what is its current dynamic
IP address. Don't need DDNS if you get a static IP from your ISP. For
DDNS, your host needs a DDNS updater client to update your DDNS account
with your current dynamic IP address. You define a port forwarding rule
(punch a hole) in your router's firewall to direct that traffic to
whichever intranet host is running the VNC server. Hopefully you
required a strong password at your VNC server to prevent invasion.
That's for external traffic; i.e., one endpoint is your intranet host,
and the other endpoint is across the Internet.

For intranet-only setups, you don't need DDNS, but you might want to
configure the upstream DHCP server in your router to assign fixed IP
addresses to your intranet hosts (well, at least the one running the VNC server) by using their MAC address. That way, you don't have to check
the current dynamic IP address at the VNC server host to then connect
using a VNC client on another intranet host.

However, with TeamViewer or Rustdesk using their own public rendezvous
servers, you will always make an outbound connection to reach an
external server to handle the handshaking between your intranet hosts.
One intranet host goes outside to the rendezvous server, the other
intranet host goes outside to the rendezvous server, and the server
facilitates one intranet host to find the other one. If the outbound
connects by your intranet hosts use HTTP to connect to the outside
server, you don't need to define a firewall rule. The firewall should
already have an HTTP rule to let your web browser to connect to outside
hosts. If not using HTTP client to connect to the outside server, you
probably will need to define a firewall rule.

Some companies don't want to have traffic bounce outside their corporate network to reach a public rendezvous server just to connect between
their own hosts inside their own network hence the need for a
self-hosted rendezvous server running inside the corporate network.

If all you are connecting are your intranet hosts, both Teamviewer and
Rustdesk will require your intranet hosts to connect outside to the
Internet to get at their public rendezvous servers. That connection is
only short-lived for the server to facilitate one host finding another.
After the server gets the endpoints connected, the server [should] steps
out of the circuit. Those services do not want to pay for the bandwidth resources to pipe all your inter-host traffic through their network.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

On 2025-08-12 02:20, VanguardLH wrote:

That could be due to where you are, and where is the public rendezvous
Rustdesk server to which you connect. I found rs-ny.rustdesk.com
mentioned, and my traceroute to it shows a huge jump in delay most
likely caused by having to go over the undersea cable to connect the
hosts across the pond.

This interpretation in the last sentence is wrong, see below ...

Satellites also incur jumps in latency.

Mobile networks can be even worse for latency. Depends on what type of cellular network to which you connect, but also the number of hops and
through which other networks your data traffic passes. See:

https://mvno-index.com/the-latency-of-the-different-mobile-networks/

I didn't bother to research for an Android app that would measure
cellular data traffic latency (not bandwidth speed) to see what I might
get at different web sites, especially on different continents. I found
one at:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.latencetech.mobilelatency&hl=en_US

but didn't bother to install it just to soon afterward uninstall it.

'The pond' is crossed by optical fibres, which by definition carry
signals at the speed of light for that medium, ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_communications_cable

Yes, the core are optical fibers. You can see a map of them at:

https://www.submarinecablemap.com/

Unfortunately the map doesn't specify the type of submarine cable for a particular route. For example, hover over the Atlantic Crossing-1 cable (purple), click on it, and the info panel shows some info, but not the
type of cable.

"Some real-world data: The IEX stock exchange routes their traffic
through 61km of wound up fiber as a speed bump for traders, which
introduces 350 |s delay.

Based on that example, the Atlantic Crossing-1 fiber cable would incur
350 microseconds x (14301 km / 61 km) = 82 ms. However, repeaters are
required for the transatlantic cables, and add further delay.

https://www.submarinenetworks.com/en/component/tags/tag/trans-atlantic

Unforunately "low latency" doesn't provide an actual value. Some of the
cables listed have latencies mentioned: 68 ms for AEConnect, 60 to 120
ms for Ellalink, 56 ms for EXA Express (between New York and London).
With AEConnect with its 5200 km span as another example, 68 ms x (14301
km / 5200 km) = 187 ms for the AC-1 cable.

I did find other info at:

https://www.iptp.net/wp-content/uploads/IPTPMap_2017_1000x700-small.pdf

which shows some latencies, like 64 ms from New York to London (scroll
down to the bottom showing the concentric circles for major cities, and latencies to other cities). Worse is New York to Singapore at 252 ms.

Theoreticals rarely equal actuals. For those using Rustdesk's or
Teamviewer's public rendezvous servers, they need to measure latency for
THEIR route to the server.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Tue, 8/12/2025 7:35 AM, Java Jive wrote:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/80043/how-fast-does-light-travel-through-a-fibre-optic-cable

"Some real-world data: The IEX stock exchange routes their traffic through 61km of wound up fiber as a speed bump for traders, which introduces 350 -|s delay. See exchange.iex.io/about/speed-bump and youtu.be/d8BcCLLX4N4?t=159. The minimal delay from that should be 61km/c = 204 -|s.They do not specify where the additional 146 -|s delay comes from (e.g. reduced speed of light inside the fiber, longer travel distance, maybe even delay from the electric components that send and receive the signal). rCo Socowi Commented Oct 27, 2022 at 20:04"

If you know the index of refraction, you know the speed of the light.

The canonical value for the speed of light, is as measured in a vacuum.

When the light travels through a material with an index of refraction,
the light goes slower.

AI Overview (ha!) [I should have asked for Olympic swimming pools]

The speed of light in a vacuum is exactly 299,792,458 meters per second.

*******

The speed of light is exactly 299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum.
In a transparent solid or liquid, it is divided by the index of refraction.
The index of refraction for glass is roughly 1.5. So the speed of light in
a glass fiber optic will be close to 199,861,638 meters per second.

I like how the index is "roughly 1.5", but the speed is good to nine digits :-)

There is also an organic liquid, with n = 1.5, and if you put a little dab
of that on the end of the fiber, when you screw two connectors together there is no reflection where they meet. And it has to be something that won't evaporate.

At the rate that fiber optic data transmission has changed, it would be
pretty hard today, to say what the thru-delay is on a fiber amp module.
At some point, they started using DSP for signal recovery. And presumably
this is along the lines of PAM-5 on Ethernet. This allows multiple bits to be recovered in one clock period. Then, if your fastest logic runs at 100GHz,
you can have a higher rate cable, if say eight bits are encoded in the signal in each clock signal period.

But just in general principles, the regen period cannot be all that long,
or the device would need a "huge buffer".

And when the housing of that thing is opened up, the solution is not
physically all that big. It's not like a Colossus hides inside the housing.

The distance between regenerators, has also improved markedly, so there
aren't as many "lumps" in the cable as it goes across the ocean floor.

A term that just popped into my head, is "soliton". And while the article mentions erbium doped amplifiers, I don't know if those are fast enough
for a transatlantic cable today. The EDA was used at about 40Gbit/sec.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton_%28optics%29

The cable is multi-spectral (uses more than one wavelength of light),
the pulses are encoded with some sort of DSP (no article explained
how that was done or what the pattern was). I guess it's a trade secret.
All we need say, is "the datarate today... is damn high". It doesn't
really matter any more, what that number is. It's just got a lotta zeros
on it.

Paul



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2025-08-12 20:16, VanguardLH wrote:

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

On 2025-08-12 02:20, VanguardLH wrote:

That could be due to where you are, and where is the public rendezvous
Rustdesk server to which you connect. I found rs-ny.rustdesk.com
mentioned, and my traceroute to it shows a huge jump in delay most
likely caused by having to go over the undersea cable to connect the
hosts across the pond.

This interpretation in the last sentence is wrong, see below ...

Satellites also incur jumps in latency.

Yes, but we're discussing undersea fibre-optic cables.

Mobile networks can be even worse for latency.

Yes, but we're discussing undersea fibre-optic cables.

'The pond' is crossed by optical fibres, which by definition carry
signals at the speed of light for that medium, ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_communications_cable

Yes, the core are optical fibers. You can see a map of them at:

https://www.submarinecablemap.com/

Unfortunately the map doesn't specify the type of submarine cable for a particular route. For example, hover over the Atlantic Crossing-1 cable (purple), click on it, and the info panel shows some info, but not the
type of cable.

"Some real-world data: The IEX stock exchange routes their traffic
through 61km of wound up fiber as a speed bump for traders, which
introduces 350 -|s delay.

Based on that example, the Atlantic Crossing-1 fiber cable would incur
350 microseconds x (14301 km / 61 km) = 82 ms. However, repeaters are required for the transatlantic cables, and add further delay.

https://www.submarinenetworks.com/en/component/tags/tag/trans-atlantic

Unforunately "low latency" doesn't provide an actual value. Some of the cables listed have latencies mentioned: 68 ms for AEConnect, 60 to 120
ms for Ellalink, 56 ms for EXA Express (between New York and London).
With AEConnect with its 5200 km span as another example, 68 ms x (14301
km / 5200 km) = 187 ms for the AC-1 cable.

I did find other info at:

https://www.iptp.net/wp-content/uploads/IPTPMap_2017_1000x700-small.pdf

which shows some latencies, like 64 ms from New York to London (scroll
down to the bottom showing the concentric circles for major cities, and latencies to other cities). Worse is New York to Singapore at 252 ms.

Theoreticals rarely equal actuals. For those using Rustdesk's or Teamviewer's public rendezvous servers, they need to measure latency for THEIR route to the server.

All of which exactly supports my statement ...

On 2025-08-12 12:35, Java Jive wrote:

the delays are caused by other things, such as how the intervening
systems are configured and/or how busy they are at the time.

... in other words, it's not the passage through fibre-optic that's the
reason for tracert &/or rust timeouts, it's other things in the system.
--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: www.macfh.co.uk

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

Mobile networks can be even worse for latency.

Yes, but we're discussing undersea fibre-optic cables.

Um, who brought mobile networks into the discussion? Oh, yeah, that was
you. "Whereas for me in Scotland, using a mobile broadband connection".

Theoreticals rarely equal actuals. For those using Rustdesk's or
Teamviewer's public rendezvous servers, they need to measure latency for
THEIR route to the server.

All of which exactly supports my statement ...

Um, who said to measure latency? That was me first. You brought in thereotical calculations (which were way off), and an example. I
brought more examples. Yep, all of that supported my claim that the
ocean cabling incurs a big jump in latency. Thanks for agreeing.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2025/8/12 19:23:32, VanguardLH wrote:

[]

No, the rendezvous server is just to handle the initial handshaking
between the endpoint hosts.

Thanks - that's all I need to know.>

Thanks for the detailed explanation that followed - but I'm afraid you
lost me at the first line: "With strawberry, you can use a tangerine
service to give a banana to the cherry of ...". OK, you didn't use
fruits, but that's where I glazed over!

[thirty something lines]

If all you are connecting are your intranet hosts, both Teamviewer and Rustdesk will require your intranet hosts to connect outside to the
Internet to get at their public rendezvous servers. That connection is
only short-lived for the server to facilitate one host finding another.
After the server gets the endpoints connected, the server [should] steps
out of the circuit. Those services do not want to pay for the bandwidth resources to pipe all your inter-host traffic through their network.

That makes sense. (Though do TeamViewer at least have a look, maybe
every few minutes or even just once an hour, so they can see you and
accuse you of being commercial?)So: Rust only needs to be there for your initial connection. So, of what nature is its alleged only 26% uptime -
does it go off for hours (or days, or weeks) at a time, or does it pop
up every few seconds - or maybe at minute intervals, if its software
doesn't time out for that long? If it comes up _reasonably_ often, and
for long enough to help you make a connection, it's a usable alternative
to TeamViewer; if it goes off for hours, it isn't.
The other figure someone mentioned - latency - presumably isn't that
much of a problem if the server is only used when establishing a connection.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I've never really "got" sport or physical exercise. The only muscle I've
ever enjoyed exercising is the one between my ears.
- Beryl Hales, Radio Times 24-30 March 2012
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2025-08-12 23:24, VanguardLH wrote:

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

Mobile networks can be even worse for latency.

Yes, but we're discussing undersea fibre-optic cables.

Um, who brought mobile networks into the discussion? Oh, yeah, that was
you. "Whereas for me in Scotland, using a mobile broadband connection".

It was merely there to document how the tracert was performed, it had no
other significance.

Theoreticals rarely equal actuals. For those using Rustdesk's or
Teamviewer's public rendezvous servers, they need to measure latency for >>> THEIR route to the server.

All of which exactly supports my statement ...

Um, who said to measure latency? That was me first.

Yes, but then you drew the wrong conclusion - or perhaps only stated
it ambiguously giving an erroneous impression of what you believed, but
given your subsequent reply, I don't think so ... whatever.

You brought in
thereotical calculations (which were way off), and an example.

On the contrary, the calculations were reasonably accurate, certainly
accurate enough to show that the problems with latency had little or
nothing to do with crossing the Atlantic. See below ...

I
brought more examples.

Which were wrong, as the link you gave, which you clearly didn't bother
to read properly, stated in its description - BTW note that the
Atlantic is 4,600 kms wide AT ITS WIDEST POINT as per my ball-park calculation, that should have alerted you that you were making some sort
of mistake [my emphasis]:

"The AC-1 (Atlantic Crossing 1) is a 14,000 km trans-Atlantic submarine
cable *SYSTEM* linking the USA and three European countries, the U.K.,
the Netherlands and Germany.

[...]

The AC-1 cable system comprises four fiber self-healing Synchronous
Digital Hierarchy (SDH) *RING* network connecting the United States with
the United Kingdom and Germany, with an initial design system capacity
of 40Gbps (8*2.5G DWDM, 2 fiber pairs).

The AC-1 cable lands at the following cable landing stations:

Brookhaven Cable Landing Station, the United States,
Whitesands Bay Cable Landing Station, the United Kingdom
Deutsche Telekom's Sylt Cable Landing Station, Germany
KPN's Beverwijk Cable Landing Station, Netherlands"

So it's a ring network, and 14,000kms is its total length, but the
distance between any two nodes on the ring is going to be much, much
less, similar to the 5-6000 km lengths given for the more recent cables described further down on that same page.

Yep, all of that supported my claim that the
ocean cabling incurs a big jump in latency.

The fibre-optical cabling itself does not contribute significantly to
the latency, as I demonstrated, it's the other paraphernalia in the
system that's responsible for most of it.

Thanks for agreeing.

You really do need to grow up and learn to admit when you're wrong.
--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: www.macfh.co.uk

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 12/08/2025 12:49, rsutton wrote:

On 8/11/2025 9:09 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/8/10 19:42:45, s|b wrote:

On Thu, 7 Aug 2025 15:20:49 +0200, Fokke Nauta wrote:

I now use TightVNC for the two local W10 pc's. It didn't work with the >>>> two wifi W11 laptops.

I've tried RustDesk a few days ago and found it more responsive than
TeamViewer. I'm not sure, but I think you can set it up, so the ID and
password of the guest devices (server) stay the same. You can create a
list of favourites and you can 'discover peers' which I think is
searching for clients/guests within the home network.

I'm using the portable version, but it can also be installed for better
results. I'll be advising family and friends to use RustDesk instead of
TeamViewer.

Is RustDesk free? Or free-for-personal-use (but has a commercial
version, so there's the same danger of being cut of because they think
you're commercial as can happen with TeamViewer?)

I have recently switched to free nomachine for all my systems:
Windows 10 (fully up to date)
Windows 11 (fully up to date)
Anduin Linux(fully up to date)
Arch Linux (fully up to date)
Fedora 41 (fully up to date)
Ubuntu 24.04 LTS (fully up to date)
Ubuntu 25.04 LTS (fully up to date)
Ubuntu 2510 LTS (fully up to date)
Mint 21-3 (fully up to date)
Mint 22 (fully up to date)

nomachine was easy to install and has given me no problems. I only use
it on my home lan: no internet access even though they support it.-a YMMV but it works perfectly for my use case and I haven't found any 'edge'
cases.
Richard

Presumably
- https://www.nomachine.com/
--
Regards
wasbit
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 13/08/2025 10:26, wasbit wrote:

On 12/08/2025 12:49, rsutton wrote:

On 8/11/2025 9:09 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/8/10 19:42:45, s|b wrote:

On Thu, 7 Aug 2025 15:20:49 +0200, Fokke Nauta wrote:

I now use TightVNC for the two local W10 pc's. It didn't work with the >>>>> two wifi W11 laptops.

I've tried RustDesk a few days ago and found it more responsive than
TeamViewer. I'm not sure, but I think you can set it up, so the ID and >>>> password of the guest devices (server) stay the same. You can create a >>>> list of favourites and you can 'discover peers' which I think is
searching for clients/guests within the home network.

I'm using the portable version, but it can also be installed for better >>>> results. I'll be advising family and friends to use RustDesk instead of >>>> TeamViewer.

Is RustDesk free? Or free-for-personal-use (but has a commercial
version, so there's the same danger of being cut of because they think
you're commercial as can happen with TeamViewer?)

I have recently switched to free nomachine for all my systems:
Windows 10 (fully up to date)
Windows 11 (fully up to date)
Anduin Linux(fully up to date)
Arch Linux (fully up to date)
Fedora 41 (fully up to date)
Ubuntu 24.04 LTS (fully up to date)
Ubuntu 25.04 LTS (fully up to date)
Ubuntu 2510 LTS (fully up to date)
Mint 21-3 (fully up to date)
Mint 22 (fully up to date)

nomachine was easy to install and has given me no problems. I only use
it on my home lan: no internet access even though they support it.
YMMV but it works perfectly for my use case and I haven't found any
'edge' cases.
Richard

Presumably
-a- https://www.nomachine.com/

I've just downloaded it. I'm gonna have a look at it.

Fokke
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2025/8/13 10:39:30, Fokke Nauta wrote:

On 13/08/2025 10:26, wasbit wrote:

On 12/08/2025 12:49, rsutton wrote:

[]

I have recently switched to free nomachine for all my systems:

[]

nomachine was easy to install and has given me no problems. I only use

[]

Presumably
-a- https://www.nomachine.com/

I've just downloaded it. I'm gonna have a look at it.

Fokke

Please tell us how usable/reliable/whatever you find it.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Everyone learns from science. It all depends how you use the knowledge.
- "Gil Grissom" (CSI).
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 13/08/2025 13:13, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/8/13 10:39:30, Fokke Nauta wrote:

On 13/08/2025 10:26, wasbit wrote:

On 12/08/2025 12:49, rsutton wrote:

[]

I have recently switched to free nomachine for all my systems:

[]

nomachine was easy to install and has given me no problems. I only use

[]

Presumably
-a- https://www.nomachine.com/

I've just downloaded it. I'm gonna have a look at it.

Fokke

Please tell us how usable/reliable/whatever you find it.

I have installed it on a W10 Pro pc.
I would advice not to use it. It's not user friendly, and it doesn't
work with a client and a server, as other VNC programs work. It has its
own network. I didn't like it and didn't go any further.
I uninstalled it.

Fokke
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> wrote:

I have installed it on a W10 Pro pc.
I would advice not to use it. It's not user friendly, and it doesn't
work with a client and a server, as other VNC programs work. It has its
own network. I didn't like it and didn't go any further.
I uninstalled it.

From what I read at its web site, to get on the network means you
publish your host there, so anyone can find it. Not just you. That
would immediately cause a flurry of activity by me if I tried it to
ensure my hosts were VERY secure from outsiders.

Their "network" does the DDNS work that I mentioned with VNC setups, but
I don't like publishing my host(s) to others. Perhaps their "network"
where you publish your hosts is secure enough, but I didn't delve into
it since I won't be using it.

https://www.nomachine.com/network

Hopefully they worked out how you use their network to find your hosts
(similar to DDNS) without exposing them to attack by others.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 02:00:55 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

Setting it up is a no brainer: you download the portable EXE and run it. The other party does the same and provides you with an ID and password, exactly as in TeamViewer. RustDesk is also a bit smaller than
TeamViewer's QuickSupport.

Ah. If you read the VLH post to which I was replying, you'll see why I
was losing the will to live thinking about it. If it's really as simple
as you say, I was worrying unnecessarily.>

I got my 70+ aunt (who claimed the TeamViewer QuickSupport wasn't on her Desktop where I left it last time) to run it successfully.

RustDesk also allows you to set up favourites, so I'm assuming ID and password stay the same.

Presumably those are stored on their server.

I guess. Today I downloaded the EXE on my mother's PC and after running
it says two things: because of UAC it states it may be better to install
and 'For faster connection, please set up your own server'

Which can be done for free: <https://rustdesk.com/docs/en/self-host/rustdesk-server-oss/>
--
s|b
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 20:35:18 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

With your setup, you are using their rendezvous server to connect the endpoint hosts. Self-hosted servers means you create your own
rendezvous server. Upon first reading, I thought Rustdesk required you
to setup your own self-host server simply because they didn't make it
obvious they had publicly accessible rendezvous servers (well, I only
found one, and it appears they have a problem with the ever increasing workload on their "demo" server).

They refer to this site for a free server: <https://rustdesk.com/docs/en/self-host/rustdesk-server-oss/>

I'm not so familiar with Docker (it's something like VM?), but I'm
wondering: if I were to create my own server with Docker and run that on Windows while I connect to the other party, would that work? Probably
have to do some portforwarding...
--
s|b
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

s|b <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

With your setup, you are using their rendezvous server to connect the
endpoint hosts. Self-hosted servers means you create your own
rendezvous server. Upon first reading, I thought Rustdesk required you
to setup your own self-host server simply because they didn't make it
obvious they had publicly accessible rendezvous servers (well, I only
found one, and it appears they have a problem with the ever increasing
workload on their "demo" server).

They refer to this site for a free server: <https://rustdesk.com/docs/en/self-host/rustdesk-server-oss/>

That is a free *self-host* server that you setup, run, maintain, and
secure. Most users don't want to bother with all that, so, to be
similar to TeamViewer, they operate a public rendezvous server, so users
just use the their client on each endpoint host.

If you are familiar with installing and configuring a VNC server, along
with punching holes in firewalls, defining port forwarding rules, and
using DDNS if your endpoint hosts don't get static IP addresses, then
you have the wherewithall to figure out how to use Rustdesk's
self-hosted rendezvous server.

Think of someone asking how to view image files. They could use
Irfanview, XnView, FastStone, etc. They weren't asking how to edit
image files using Paint.NET, GIMP, Photoshop, etc. They don't need nor
want a plethora of features they won't use. They want quick and easy
viewing only.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 17:09:29 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

If you are familiar with installing and configuring a VNC server, along
with punching holes in firewalls, defining port forwarding rules, and
using DDNS if your endpoint hosts don't get static IP addresses, then
you have the wherewithall to figure out how to use Rustdesk's
self-hosted rendezvous server.

Think of someone asking how to view image files. They could use
Irfanview, XnView, FastStone, etc. They weren't asking how to edit
image files using Paint.NET, GIMP, Photoshop, etc. They don't need nor
want a plethora of features they won't use. They want quick and easy
viewing only.

Doesn't matter if I'm the one viewing. If I can set up the server and
other settings like portforwarding, then I could use my own server
instead of trusting a third party server. Also, RustDesk claims using
your own server is faster.
--
s|b
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 8/13/2025 12:33 PM, Fokke Nauta wrote:

On 13/08/2025 13:13, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/8/13 10:39:30, Fokke Nauta wrote:

On 13/08/2025 10:26, wasbit wrote:

On 12/08/2025 12:49, rsutton wrote:

[]

I have recently switched to free nomachine for all my systems:

[]

nomachine was easy to install and has given me no problems. I only use

[]

Presumably
-a -a- https://www.nomachine.com/

I've just downloaded it. I'm gonna have a look at it.

Fokke

Please tell us how usable/reliable/whatever you find it.

I have installed it on a W10 Pro pc.
I would advice not to use it. It's not user friendly, and it doesn't
work with a client and a server, as other VNC programs work. It has its
own network. I didn't like it and didn't go any further.
I uninstalled it.

Fokke

Fokke,
You don't have to use their 'network' if you confine it to just your
lan. That's what I do. I don't allow these company servers to have my
info, either. I just use it as a more reliable program that runs
equally well on my linux desktops on my lan. I don't remember if you
needed remote internet access.
Richard
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 14/08/2025 14:22, rsutton wrote:

On 8/13/2025 12:33 PM, Fokke Nauta wrote:

On 13/08/2025 13:13, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/8/13 10:39:30, Fokke Nauta wrote:

On 13/08/2025 10:26, wasbit wrote:

On 12/08/2025 12:49, rsutton wrote:

[]

I have recently switched to free nomachine for all my systems:

[]

nomachine was easy to install and has given me no problems. I only >>>>>> use

[]

Presumably
-a -a- https://www.nomachine.com/

I've just downloaded it. I'm gonna have a look at it.

Fokke

Please tell us how usable/reliable/whatever you find it.

I have installed it on a W10 Pro pc.
I would advice not to use it. It's not user friendly, and it doesn't
work with a client and a server, as other VNC programs work. It has
its own network. I didn't like it and didn't go any further.
I uninstalled it.

Fokke

Fokke,
You don't have to use their 'network' if you confine it to just your
lan.-a That's what I do.-a I don't allow these company servers to have my info, either.-a I just use it as a more reliable program that runs
equally well on my linux desktops on my lan.-a I don't remember if you needed remote internet access.
Richard

Hi Richard,

Well, I don't need NoMachine anyway. Just tried it.
I use VNCViewer for my both W10 pc's and RealVNC for two W11 wifi
laptops. It all works well.

Fokke

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2