|
DevNull posted:https://labs.vmware.com/flings/vnc-server-and-vnc-client Very cool man! I used to play WoW over VNC from a work machine. I can't imagine Skyrim on VNC, but it sounds like something fun to mess around with.
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 08:18 |
|
|
evol262 posted:Will the next release be under an open license? This looks really nice, but I'm wondering about integrating the server with other stuff... The license will basically be the same. I think we have used more open source stuff, but we just have to audit it to include the disclosures. I didn't even look at what VMware adds. For all of our code, we only use BSD/MIT type licenses. I think LGPL is ok as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
I just realized that I forgot to mention a cool with with using our server/client on both ends. We remote sound too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
DevNull posted:https://labs.vmware.com/flings/vnc-server-and-vnc-client Add support for a Mac client and I will literally .. do something .. install it, I guess. I mean I'm really excited about this but I can't think of anything outlandish to do. Nor will I 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Add support for a Mac client and I will literally .. do something .. install it, I guess. I mean I'm really excited about this but I can't think of anything outlandish to do. Nor will I That is my number one request as well, we just have not had the time to make it happen. I spent the last week in Seattle connected to my machine in Palo Alto that runs the server on Linux. I use Jolly's Fast VNC on my Macbook Air, and it was really good. We have a crazy plan to make the UI much better moving forward, which will also give us a client for Mac. Now that we have done a release, we don't have nearly as much bureaucracy to deal with for updates.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
I decided to install ESXi on my old computer for pure loving-around purposes. After some fun getting it to recognize the NIC (and it working successfully after that, yay), I was surprised by the need for a license. I guess the license was free, and it's already installed, but now I'm wondering: is there anything else about this (like maybe the admin client?) that's not actually free?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
hey guys quick question that I thought I'd ask here - I have a host machine with a VM guest, running Ubuntu 14.04. I have the guest running in NAT mode, and the guest can see IPs on the host's wired network. Problem is, the host cannot ping the guest. I think its because I am connected via OpenVPN on the host. Is the host supposed to be able to ping the guest VM when the guest is NAT'd (sharing the Hosts's IP address)? I've searched all over with no good solution here - I tried adding routes with no dice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
Ciaphas posted:I decided to install ESXi on my old computer for pure loving-around purposes. After some fun getting it to recognize the NIC (and it working successfully after that, yay), I was surprised by the need for a license. I guess the license was free, and it's already installed, but now I'm wondering: is there anything else about this (like maybe the admin client?) that's not actually free? Mostly just the stuff that vCenter Server offers. I don't really think you'll see more sign of that. What feature did you try to play with which wanted a license?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Kachunkachunk posted:Mostly just the stuff that vCenter Server offers. I don't really think you'll see more sign of that. What feature did you try to play with which wanted a license? None, I just saw the 60 Days Left message somewhere (I think it was when I launched the vSphere Client) and got worried. I don't even know what half this software is. vCenter Server, vSphere Client, vSphere Web Client which is apparently completely different from vSphere Client??? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
DevNull posted:https://labs.vmware.com/flings/vnc-server-and-vnc-client Can you compare it to existing VNC solutions? Better support for low bandwidth?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
madsushi posted:Can you compare it to existing VNC solutions? Better support for low bandwidth? We do a lot of adaptive work on the server side to reduce the bandwidth used. I think some of the heuristics have changed since I worked on it, but I know we use to only send PNG updates for text regions and when there was low bandwidth. We also measure bandwidth and adapt the compression as needed. So we will compress JPG updates more if you have a low bandwidth connection. It will build to lossless. This is all done by the server, you don't have to select any type of connection like some VNC implementation. We also support mouse grab like you get with a VM. And sound. This version unfortunately doesn't grab the sound from the linux server, but it will stream sound if you connect to a VM that has VNC enabled. The next version should have better sound support.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Ciaphas posted:None, I just saw the 60 Days Left message somewhere (I think it was when I launched the vSphere Client) and got worried. The license it comes baked in with is the full Enterprise Plus in eval mode. When you register ESXi with your VMware account they give you the perpetual ESXi free license that locks down all the fancy features you have to pay for and stops bugging you. The vCenter server is what gets you the web client and those are entirely optional, paid components. The standard thick client doesn't have licensing per se, it just honors the licensing of whatever you are connecting to (direct ESXi host or vCenter instance). Until you're 60 days is up you could put up a instance of vCenter on a VM and manage the host through that, but you don't really get in to any of the good stuff until you have two+ identical hosts running in a cluster.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Ciaphas posted:None, I just saw the 60 Days Left message somewhere (I think it was when I launched the vSphere Client) and got worried. The vSphere Client is a legacy client that runs on a desktop. You can use it with hosts directly, or with vCenter Server and its exposed functions/features will more or less adapt to whichever product you connect with (so a lot more stuff shows up when you connect to VC). The Web Client is the "Next Gen Client" that depends on Flash. It's not the most favourite design choice around, but I believe it was formulated when HTML5 wasn't mature enough for adoption. I don't get why Flash made sense in such a situation, but here we are. In any case, it's installed for use with vCenter Server and includes access to even more features that the regular vSphere Client will not see (it's legacy after all). You'll occasionally see exciting news and developments from the likes of DevNull when it comes to client stuff, including the HTML5 client. Lots of folks are real hopeful for that one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
Kachunkachunk posted:HTML5 client. Lots of folks are real hopeful for that one. Hopefully the success of the embedded host client (I hate the name) will convince the higher ups that we need to focus on html5 and dump flash fast. I've been watching this trainwreck for something like 5 years now. So if you want to see that succeed, leave a comment on the Fling page saying how you hate the web UI, and how much you love the embedded client.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
I personally am a big fan of the massive memory leaks that are caused by the flash client running on Firefox to the point that I can't leave it open for more than an hour without all ram being exhausted and the system descending in the page thrashing hell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
No the best feature of the web client is when you try to delete a VM from disk, and it says "are you sure you want to delete the selected VMs from disk?" but doesn't list it/them, so you look to the left to see what's selected but that panel has refreshed and isn't showing anything, or is scrolled to where you can't see the VM, and you just have to live on the edge and click yes and see what happens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
DevNull posted:Hopefully the success of the embedded host client (I hate the name) will convince the higher ups that we need to focus on html5 and dump flash fast. I've been watching this trainwreck for something like 5 years now. Can we still also love the C# client? Please....
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Mr Shiny Pants posted:Can we still also love the C# client? Please.... It has no future. It was kept on life support only because of the problems with the web client. The embedded client is more likely to get good support than the C# client.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
DevNull posted:It has no future. It was kept on life support only because of the problems with the web client. The embedded client is more likely to get good support than the C# client. boo this man.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
DevNull posted:It has no future. It was kept on life support only because of the problems with the web client. The embedded client is more likely to get good support than the C# client. Weird how a company that says that it listens to it's customers will discontinue a feature that is well loved by the same customers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Mr Shiny Pants posted:Weird how a company that says that it listens to it's customers will discontinue a feature that is well loved by the same customers. There are a ton of customer that don't want to be stuck on a client that only works on Windows. Listening to customers doesn't mean building a solution that works just for you, there are other customers. Feedback will influence them though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
DevNull posted:There are a ton of customer that don't want to be stuck on a client that only works on Windows. Listening to customers doesn't mean building a solution that works just for you, there are other customers. Feedback will influence them though. It's depressing because its the most Microsoft move to make. Why didn't they A: wait till the replacement isn't painful to use before stopping support for something that works well ? or B: build a native OS X client and cover 99.9999999% of your customer base?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
jre posted:It's depressing because its the most Microsoft move to make. This is a fair point. "B" would have been pretty expensive. Getting the basics to work would have been fine, but all the advanced stuff would have taken a lot of time and effort. "A" was because of the project being poorly managed. It took then far longer to get the web client working than it should have. I'm talking years of works. It finally got pushed out because someone high up was convinced it was good enough by the people that worked on it. It should have never shipped in the state that it did. At this point, they have invested enough that it makes sense to keep the web based UI. It just needs to be html5 instead of flash. The embedded client exists because the people working on the ESX side of thing were so sick of the official web UI. It started out as a few people doing a web server that would just do basic power operations and such for a single ESX machine. Another group did a project just for the console to come up. They merged the two, then spend the next year trying to get it officially supported. Eventually, it got enough support that they ESX team put two guys on it. They are the ones that did the fling. They are not UI guys. They just did it because they knew a solution needed to be done.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
DevNull posted:This is a fair point. "B" would have been pretty expensive. Getting the basics to work would have been fine, but all the advanced stuff would have taken a lot of time and effort. Thanks for the info, it's interesting to hear the background to it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
jre posted:Thanks for the info, it's interesting to hear the background to it. No problem. I think I mentioned before that the WebUI people put up flyers in the bathrooms a few years ago to get people to use it internally. Those flyers ended up cover in comments like "It sucks" and "too slow" written all over them. You know things are bad when that is happening. The embedded client gives me hope that things will get pushed in the right direction faster.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
I know that NPAPI deprecation kills the vmrc plugin, but why does vsphere 6 default to telling you to download the VMRC Application rather than just use the HTML5 console?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
theperminator posted:I know that NPAPI deprecation kills the vmrc plugin, but why does vsphere 6 default to telling you to download the VMRC Application rather than just use the HTML5 console? There are limitations to the html5 console. It doesn't do modifier keys as well, keyboard LEDs, etc. As far as which one is the default, that was probably a decision by a PM that decided that most people want those features. I don't use the WebUI, so I don't know how hard it is to get the html5 vs the VMRC.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
I got pulled into this weirdness last minute tonight .. I am tired of OT, so can someone chime in to see if they know whats up? ESXi 5.5U2 upgrade to U2E, server runs a QLogic ISP2432 based FC card that was (for some reason?) using the old qla2xxx drivers (5.5 went to native) but after the upgrade it has decided to use the new qlnativefc module. However with this being the case, my adapters no longer show up when querying the storage adapters, however vmkernel.log indicates that qlnativefc is happy and talking to the driver (sees the WWPN's, does a login to the fabirc and is linked up @ 4Gbps). dmesg indicates that qla2xxx gets loaded and then unloaded during boot. Here is the pastebin of the vmkernel.log (wwpn's removed just in case, who knows ..  )http://pastebin.com/7myANPMX Anyone have any ideas? Edit : Found the issue and its resolved with : PR 1080282: Changing a BIOS device setting on an ESXi host might result in invalid device names if the change causes a shift in the segment:bus:device:function values assigned to devices. For example, enabling a previously-disabled integrated NIC might shift the segment:bus:device:function values assigned to other PCI devices, causing ESXi to change the names assigned to these NICs. Unlike previous versions of ESXi, ESXi 5.5 attempts to preserve devices names through segment:bus:device:function changes if the host BIOS provides specific device location information. mAlfunkti0n fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Aug 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
I've kind of had a change of heart about the WebUI. I prefer it to the thick client just for accessibility reasons but, as people have mentioned, the responsiveness and bloat leave a lot of room for improvement. I still choose it over the thick client, even on Windows machines, these days though; Just because I've become accustomed to it. That said, I don't have a NEED for vCenter since I run a strict single-machine lab, so if we can get the host-based UI to market then I can free up that 6-8GB VCSA requirement. Having said THAT, I do make extensive use of templates and such so maybe I'll have to keep VCSA. Who knows.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
the web client was just so poo poo to begin with, that they will probably never get that bad taste out of peoples mouths.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
adorai posted:the web client was just so poo poo to begin with, that they will probably never get that bad taste out of peoples mouths. Probably, and the current line being "Don't use the native client, use the webapp even though it's a piece of poo poo because someday it will totes get better I promise" is poo poo. Users need it to work well so they can get poo poo done and make sure their infrastructure keeps working, it isn't some toy. that's why people keep using the windows app.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 06:10
|
|
|
Does the webui still use flash in 6.0? Been awhile since I used it in my lab. If so, I really really really hate flash.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 12:23
|
|
|
mAlfunkti0n posted:Does the webui still use flash in 6.0? Been awhile since I used it in my lab. If so, I really really really hate flash. Yep.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 12:36
|
|
|
They claim html5 someday, it's just held up in management!
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 12:43
|
|
|
mAlfunkti0n posted:Does the webui still use flash in 6.0? Been awhile since I used it in my lab. If so, I really really really hate flash. To be fair, it is WAY better in 6.0 though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 13:55
|
|
|
mayodreams posted:To be fair, it is WAY better in 6.0 though. I remember it being much better but I am sick of flash to the point its disabled across my browsers or not installed at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
mAlfunkti0n posted:I remember it being much better but I am sick of flash to the point its disabled across my browsers or not installed at all. Sometimes (often), doing productive business work means using stuff you don't like. VMware doesn't care whether mAlfunkti0n likes flash. They care whether customers that pay tons of money are willing to use flash to use VMware (yes), and whether using a web client lowers the administrative overhead of requiring users of the client to need local admin (or software install rights) so they could keep up with the kajillion updates to the C# client that all needed admin (yes). You are not as important as big clients and saving developer time. HTH
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
It's not like "flash us awful" is some kind of minority opinion. Hell, it's pretty much a fact. I don't think we need your corporate white knighting here evol.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:corporate white knighting here evol. You realize he works for the competition, right? He is trying to explain how large companies make decisions. He is right in the regards of how decisions are made. I'm not happy that decision was made. I don't have to use it luckily. It's ok, we can all be happy now that flash is dying and we can move to html5. Hopefully the Fling will show how important that move is, and light a fire under some people. I'll just be over here with my can full of gas and hand full of matches.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 08:18 |
|
|
It could be worse. Imagine if the web UI was a JavaWS applet 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:02
|
|
