🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3vje2hINNmva@keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca> c2a192@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca (Kazimir Kylheku) writes:

>In article <jd-wong-3107950335510001@antwerp-10.slip.uiuc.edu>,
>Jim Wong <jd-wong@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>In article <danpop.807144468@rscernix>, Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:
>>
>>> The difference is that you can't fix a problem on your friend's Mac 
>>> without being physically in front of its screen and keyboard.  A modem
>>> connection doesn't help at all for this task.
>>
>>Not necessarily true.  There's nothing difficult about controlling a Mac
>>remotely using Timbuktu.

>Yes there is: you need (1) another Macintosh, (2) Timbuktu software installed
>on both ends.

Well, to fix somebody's Unix machine remotely, you still need a computer 
yourself too.  Not as difficult a requirement as having a Mac, of course...  
Anybody know if Timbuktu is available for Windows?

>Could you program the remote machine over Timbuktu?

Yes.

>  What if it crashes?

If only an app crashes, no problem.  If the whole machine dies, then hope that 
the auto-restart-on-system-bomb extension you installed didn't go down in 
smoke with everything else.

>Is Timbuktu *completely* transparent to all programs without any conflicts?

As far as I know, yes.  I have used Timbuktu over an AppleTalk network, but 
that was several years ago.

>To get into UNIX, I can just use any old terminal emulator. In fact, this is
>how I do much of my work from the comfort of home. In addition to programming,
>I even do some graphic design and typesetting work this way, even though I
>can't see the results immediately.

Well, there's an advantage of Timbuktu--you get all the graphics.  Of course 
this is a disadvantage over a modem.

-Ericb@psu.edu