PDA

View Full Version : Question about Laptop connecting to a Desktop



Pages : [1] 2

Junior89
03-16-2008, 11:31 PM
Hello all!

I'm currently working on a programming project (a server program) which will run on an old computer i have lying around (Windows NT). I am wondering, i also have an older laptop lying around, is it possible to use the laptop as the means of communication and display for the "server"? Instead of having to hookup a big ole monitor and keyboard and mouse, it would be much more ergonomic if i could just connect a cord between the laptop and the computer and use the laptop to interface with the computer (by computer i mean desktop) when needed. The "server" will run independantly without a screen or keyboard or anything, but should i need to access the server directly or update it or something, it would be much easier to just connect it to a small laptop instead of a big screen and seperate mouse and seperate keyboard.

I've googled the heck out of it and i cant seem to find the information i'm looking for, so any help would be greatly appreciated if this is indeed possible.

Thanks!

vart
03-16-2008, 11:41 PM
The simplest way I see - connect 2 computers into a network and use some remote desktop application.

I do not remember if it is available "as is" on windows NT, but I suppose that something like Real VNC should work even on such an old OS

Junior89
03-20-2008, 06:21 PM
Thank you, i will look into it

Elysia
03-21-2008, 02:27 AM
Remote desktop application? That's easy. TightVNC!
Easy and 100% free.

manav
03-21-2008, 02:40 AM
Thanks Elysia!
I have an internet connection (modem based, 64kbps).
My brother also has an internet connection (same type).
There is a website (i Goggled for it) that tells the IP addresses.
I and my brother both have Windows XP.
I want to either view my brother's computer or allow him to view my, using TightVNC.
Can you help me too??

Elysia
03-21-2008, 02:43 AM
It's easy.
First install TightVNC on both computers. After installation, options should pop up. Tick "accept incoming connections" and select a password (this must be done on the computer you want to connect to).
Then all you need to do is start TightVNC viewer, select appropriate connection type and type in IP and then connect. Enter password and you're set to go.
Just make sure no firewall is blocking.

JFonseka
03-21-2008, 04:13 AM
Ah, I might give that a try, I've always needed to keep a check on my younger brother of what he views.

Elysia
03-21-2008, 04:16 AM
Spying? TightVNC is not a spy program; it's a remote administration program. I'm afraid it doesn't quite work the way you want it to.

JFonseka
03-21-2008, 04:18 AM
Spying? TightVNC is not a spy program; it's a remote administration program. I'm afraid it doesn't quite work the way you want it to.

If I can see what he is doing, it's good enough

Elysia
03-21-2008, 04:19 AM
You'll control the mouse, too.
Not to mention spying is quite rude. What would you think if the government snooped around your private business?

JFonseka
03-21-2008, 04:24 AM
You'll control the mouse, too.
Not to mention spying is quite rude. What would you think if the government snooped around your private business?

I couldn't say much if they did that because I was hacking into their servers.

In the last 6 months. I've had to reformat 2 computers downstairs over 5 times, then one computer blew a capacitor which meant my dad had to get the motherboard replaced, and due to that when I now reformat computers since the recovery cd's are ACER, it only requires ACER motherboards, so I have to remove the hard drive, slave it to the other computer and reformat through that.

The reason for reformatting so many times? My brother clicks on every dumb ad, downloads every noob program in existence, and creates a virus fest. Results include antivirus software not running, the computer failing to start up due to enormous lag, giving errors when booting into safe mode, unable to access the registry and etc. I can't use administrator accounts because my mum complains the scanner doesn't work when she is in guest mode, etc.

So what's the alternative? Catch him red handed, and no I can't deprive him from using the computer. I don't like spending several hours reformatting hard disks

JFonseka
03-21-2008, 04:26 AM
Furthermore, he is 20 m away downstairs, so it's hardly rude, considering I could stand next to him for his duration of using the computer and watching what he does, but that's hardly an option.

Elysia
03-21-2008, 04:35 AM
So what's the alternative? Catch him red handed, and no I can't deprive him from using the computer. I don't like spending several hours reformatting hard disks
I know what you mean. I have sort of the same problem with someone else.
However, it does not justify spying.


Furthermore, he is 20 m away downstairs, so it's hardly rude, considering I could stand next to him for his duration of using the computer and watching what he does, but that's hardly an option.
This still does not justify spying.
What you can do is explicitly ask for permission and if he says yes, then you can do it.

To fix your problems, here are a couple of suggestions.
Give him a limited account. Require your permission to install things.
Block all programs from running except from things he uses which are safe.
Use active spyware, anti-virus and firewall protection.
Get a server and monitor everything from the internet he accesses and block material which you find inappropriate (downloading programs, for example).

JFonseka
03-21-2008, 04:54 AM
I know what you mean. I have sort of the same problem with someone else.
However, it does not justify spying.

Yes it does, I don't care much about these 'electronic acts rights', I need to know what he is upto simply because he messes up the computer.



This still does not justify spying.
What you can do is explicitly ask for permission and if he says yes, then you can do it.

Haha, that won't ever work



To fix your problems, here are a couple of suggestions.
Give him a limited account. Require your permission to install things.
Block all programs from running except from things he uses which are safe.
Use active spyware, anti-virus and firewall protection.
Get a server and monitor everything from the internet he accesses and block material which you find inappropriate (downloading programs, for example).

Like I said, my parents complain when certain things don't work for them and they are clueless about what to do, so I can't give them all separate accounts, they are likely to forget the password. So I have one standard and one administrator.

Get a server?

Eitherways, I have all those things running and plus he is on a standard account now anyways, but occasionally i have to log my parents into the administrator one for them to get work done, and he will get on it at some point.

You are taking this 'spying' to a new level. Spying is justified when it causes unnecessary pain to the people involved, for example 'running servers', extra costs and etc, especially when it's people in the same family. Equally spying is justified, when user actions compromises security risks, this way if he is doing some noobish thing, I can be there in a split second to reprimand him.

Elysia
03-21-2008, 04:59 AM
Spying is actually illegal in some countries. So it's not justified.
However, what you could do is refuse to fix it unless they agree to let you administrate the computer and allow "surveillance."
And all accounts do not need a password. The admin account does.

JFonseka
03-21-2008, 05:04 AM
Spying is actually illegal in some countries. So it's not justified.
However, what you could do is refuse to fix it unless they agree to let you administrate the computer and allow "surveillance."
And all accounts do not need a password. The admin account does.

Like I said, i don't care about the electronics acts right, there have to be cases logically when spying is justified, for example when there is a threat to national security, life and death, child pornography and etc.

Of course, this isn't that extreme, but you get my point. Spying is justified, dependent on the case.

I already administrate the computer, I haven't spied on him since about 2 years ago or so, but I don't say no when the tool can come in handy. And it probably will at some point. I know all accounts don't need a password. But for e.g.

My mum needs to use the scanner, she tells my brother to do it, i'm not at home, she can't access it because the computer denies the scanner access in standard mode, it needs administration mode.

No I can't teach my mum how to use it, it just won't work, she probably will eventually tell me that she can't find the logout button. I would have thought of all of this already. It's because of my parents that I'm restrained about what actions I can do on the computer.

Elysia
03-21-2008, 05:08 AM
This does not condone spying and this discussion ends here. I will not help someone to spy on someone else.

laserlight
03-21-2008, 05:11 AM
Spying is justified, dependent on the case.
True, and from what I understand, some countries take the stand that if the equipment belongs to the company, the company can monitor its usage as necessary.

On the other hand, Elysia has a point: whether company or family, you should show some respect and inform your brother that he will be monitored, citing your reasons for doing so. Of course, you must also respect his privacy.

JFonseka
03-21-2008, 05:11 AM
This does not condone spying and this discussion ends here. I will not help someone to spy on someone else.

I don't really need help to spy on others. I'm quite capable of doing it, it's just that there are not many 'free' spy tools that are good, but then again, I haven't really searched for free remote desktop control apps before

But doing a quick search typing 3 words:

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=remote+desktop+free&btnG=Search&meta=

:rolleyes:


Don't feel too bad, you haven't helped me spy.

JFonseka
03-21-2008, 05:13 AM
On the other hand, Elysia has a point: whether company or family, you should show some respect and inform your brother that he will be monitored.

When I do need to, I probably will.

Elysia
03-21-2008, 05:14 AM
True, and from what I understand, some countries take the stand that if the equipment belongs to the company, the company can monitor its usage as necessary.

Remember that in some countries, like mine, it's illegal to surveillance someone without first properly informing him or her that you are doing it. This applies to stores, companies and it would apply to individuals trying to surveillance someone else, too.
Not to mention you are severely damaging someone else's privacy.

laserlight
03-21-2008, 05:20 AM
Remember that in some countries, like mine, it's illegal to surveillance someone without first properly informing him or her that you are doing it.
Even if it were legal to monitor without informing, it would still be unethical.

JFonseka
03-21-2008, 05:25 AM
Remember that in some countries, like mine, it's illegal to surveillance someone without first properly informing him or her that you are doing it. This applies to stores, companies and it would apply to individuals trying to surveillance someone else, too.
Not to mention you are severely damaging someone else's privacy.

This 'privacy' issue has led to many a time criminals getting away and employees abusing the system.

Governments and companies aren't interested in finding out grandma's secret hotpot recipe, it's only if you are doing something wrong you should be worried, and then again if it's stuff like financials then you probably shouldn't be doing it on a work place computer. And plus I think nowadays people working on computers are informed beforehand when they join the job that computers are being monitored. So it isn't really an issue there.

I don't give a crap about what my brother really does, besides finding out what he is doing to screw up the computer often and actually proving it to him. Also the fact that if he watches porn or not which I don't want him to, especially on a family computer. That is by far a bigger issue rather than debate whether I'm 'infringing' his rights, especially when you are implicitly quoting the electronics act which is ever changing and is really a generalization to keep everyone happy.

Elysia, eitherways I think it's funny that you are saying spying is wrong, because I think it's pretty much well known that companies and governments are constantly doing it to each other, not on the software basis alone, but physically, the very countries that enforce it, also break it, so it's rather contradictory.

I 'spy' not because I want to read my brother's love letters or to see the latest round of poker that he is playing, but for reasons I have mentioned above, I have a younger brother who is 5 and uses the computer downstairs too.

Eitherways, I will 'inform' him, if I ever intend to monitor him in the future.

JFonseka
03-21-2008, 05:27 AM
Even if it were legal to monitor without informing, it would still be unethical.

Depends, if it's at the workplace, no.

At the workplace, you are meant to be working, not personal stuff. So it's really the person being monitored that is at fault.

laserlight
03-21-2008, 05:30 AM
At the workplace, you are meant to be working, not personal stuff.
That's besides the point. The point is that the invasion of privacy without warning is unethical. That the employee abused company resources is another matter, especially company policy on private use of company computing equipment varies.


And plus I think nowadays people working on computers are informed beforehand when they join the job that computers are being monitored.
That could be due to law, or it could be due to ethical concerns.

JFonseka
03-21-2008, 05:31 AM
That's besides the point. The point is that the invasion of privacy without warning is unethical. That the employee abused company resources is another matter, especially company policy on private use of company computing equipment varies.

But who sets these 'ethical' standards? What's the basis of all of this.

laserlight
03-21-2008, 05:34 AM
But who sets these 'ethical' standards?
Reasoning and introspection, e.g., would you like to be monitored without your knowledge?

JFonseka
03-21-2008, 05:37 AM
Reasoning and introspection, e.g., would you like to be monitored without your knowledge?

EDIT:
If I was at work, no i wouldn't mind. I actually subscribe to 'responsibility' if I was caught doing something at work and I didn't know they were monitoring, it's still my fault, not their fault.

If I was at home, yes i would, because no needs to monitor me there, unless I was doing something wrong again, like MESSING UP the family computers.

Eitherways 'reasoning' seems to vary a lot these days, so that doesn't really hold.

laserlight
03-21-2008, 05:43 AM
If I was at work, no. I actually subscribe to 'responsibility' if I was caught doing something at work and I didn't know they were monitoring, it's still my fault, not their fault.
That only shows that it is unethical for you to use the company's computer irresponsibly. It does not show that it is ethical to monitor the computer without your knowledge (e.g., the ethics of duty here could apply in both directions).


If I was at home, yes, because no needs to monitor me there, unless I was doing something wrong again, like MESSING UP the family computers.
You're missing the point: I am not arguing that it is the monitoring that is unethical, but the lack of prior warning that is unethical.

Elysia
03-21-2008, 05:48 AM
This 'privacy' issue has led to many a time criminals getting away and employees abusing the system.
That's different. Sometimes there is need for surveillance. But spying on someone without really good cause is just plain wrong. There must be a line drawn somewhere.


Elysia, eitherways I think it's funny that you are saying spying is wrong, because I think it's pretty much well known that companies and governments are constantly doing it to each other, not on the software basis alone, but physically, the very countries that enforce it, also break it, so it's rather contradictory.
How so? I never claimed I like companies or governments spying either. It should all stop, if you ask me.


I 'spy' not because I want to read my brother's love letters or to see the latest round of poker that he is playing, but for reasons I have mentioned above, I have a younger brother who is 5 and uses the computer downstairs too.
You realize that typically a front approach works better than just trying to deny everything for someone?

JFonseka
03-21-2008, 05:50 AM
That only shows that it is unethical for you to use the company's computer irresponsibly. It does not show that it is ethical to monitor the computer without your knowledge (e.g., the ethics of duty here could apply in both directions).


You're missing the point: I am not arguing that it is the monitoring that is unethical, but the lack of prior warning that is unethical.

I don't agree, if it's the workplace, you are meant to be doing work related issues. Like I said, what is ethical depends on the case. At work, it doesn't 'go both ways' you are given a job, and you are meant to do it, the only time I guess it is NOT OK is if they monitor you and the company doesn't have a policy on using the computers for personal use.

But pretty much all companies do. If you are meant to be doing something, but doing something else, how is it someone else's fault?, if it's their systems, they should have the right to install whatever the heck they want, you being monitored unknowingly is your wrongdoing, because you were doing something that you weren't meant to be doing.

JFonseka
03-21-2008, 05:54 AM
That's different. Sometimes there is need for surveillance. But spying on someone without really good cause is just plain wrong. There must be a line drawn somewhere.
Yea, and who exactly draws this line? Who is to determine what is wrong and what isn't, the legal act? It's always being revised anyways, so these 'ethics' don't seem to go hand in hand, ethics should be unchanged, if it's changing all the time, then how can you reinforce what is wrong and right if it's changing.

And also who determines what is 'good cause'



How so? I never claimed I like companies or governments spying either. It should all stop, if you ask me.
True, it should ALL stop, but it won't ever. Governments are always interested in what the other is doing, and hence you can never know who exactly is spying you, they have to spy on others, even though formally they deny it all. If the US decided to stop spying, rest assured...well you can imagine what will happen. Eitherways, the point is, you are implicitly quoting these 'rights' acts instituted by the governments who break the rules themselves, they set the standards for ethics, then break it, and then hand it out like confetti for others to propagate their dialectics while in a state of hypocrisy. So how can you even know what is ethical or not, you are merely saying it because the government has said so in their acts, it's been drilled into everyone's head. SPYING IS WRONG, but it really depends on when, where, why, how



You realize that typically a front approach works better than just trying to deny everything for someone?

?

Elysia
03-21-2008, 05:58 AM
Yea, and who exactly draws this line? Who is to determine what is wrong and what isn't, the legal act? It's always being revised anyways, so these 'ethics' don't seem to go hand in hand, ethics should be unchanged, if it's changing all the time, then how can you reinforce what is wrong and right if it's changing.

And also who determines what is 'good cause'
This can be quite a discussion. A discussion that never ends. And I'm not willing to pursue it. Just let it be said that I believe spying on someone like you are is not acceptable.


?
Meaning it would be better to talk to your brothers/parents about the problems and discuss solutions rather than trying to force things down their throat and spy on them.

JFonseka
03-21-2008, 05:58 AM
Anyways, I don't care anymore. I will inform my brother if I plan to monitor him, is that k Elysia?

Elysia
03-21-2008, 05:59 AM
Go ahead.

laserlight
03-21-2008, 07:46 AM
the only time I guess it is NOT OK is if they monitor you and the company doesn't have a policy on using the computers for personal use.

But pretty much all companies do.
In other words, pretty much all companies behave ethically in respect, also in compliance with respective laws.


If you are meant to be doing something, but doing something else, how is it someone else's fault?
It is not. That is entirely your fault.


if it's their systems, they should have the right to install whatever the heck they want
That is what I pointed out.


you being monitored unknowingly is your wrongdoing
That does not make sense since it implies that even if you are legitimately using company computer resources, you are in the wrong, since you are being monitored unknowingly.


because you were doing something that you weren't meant to be doing.
If you are in the wrong concerning the usage of a computer, you are in the wrong whether you are being monitored or not, with or without your knowledge.

EDIT:

I will inform my brother if I plan to monitor him
Ah, fair enough then :)

JFonseka
03-21-2008, 09:11 AM
That does not make sense since it implies that even if you are legitimately using company computer resources, you are in the wrong, since you are being monitored unknowingly.



Sorry, I meant, you being monitored unknowingly in a company, shouldn't be a problem when what you are meant to be doing is their WORK, which is monitored anyways by a project leader. When you get caught, even if you were monitored unknowingly, then it is your wrongdoing. There should be no question of 'privacy issues' in a workplace since you shouldn't be doing personal things there anyways, and monitoring is bound to happen, whether they inform you or not. And don't take what I said in quotes in a broad sense, just to your privacy during work, it's not really 'privacy' when it's evaluated by everyone.

You can't blame someone for monitoring you without telling you, when you were not meant to be doing personal things in the first place.

This goes back to what I earlier said about dependency cases.

Mario F.
03-21-2008, 11:13 AM
You can't blame someone for monitoring you without telling you, when you were not meant to be doing personal things in the first place.

Under most countries' labor law, this is illegal. EDIT: The monitoring is.

laserlight
03-21-2008, 11:37 AM
Under most countries' labor law, this is illegal. EDIT: The monitoring is.
Even with an appropriate notice to staff? If I remember correctly, I read in a local newspaper that such monitoring was permitted in Singapore, with the appropriate prior warning of the monitoring. This online article on Workplace Privacy (http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs7-work.htm) states that, at least in the US:

Is my employer allowed to see what is on my terminal while I am working?

Generally, yes. Since the employer owns the computer network and the terminals, he or she is free to use them to monitor employees.Employees are given some protection from computer and other forms of electronic monitoring under certain circumstances. Union contracts, for example, may limit the employer's right to monitor. Also, public sector employees may have some minimal rights under the United States Constitution, in particular the Fourth Amendment which safeguards against unreasonable search and seizure.

Mario F.
03-21-2008, 11:47 AM
Even with an appropriate notice to staff? If I remember correctly, I read in a local newspaper that such monitoring was permitted in Singapore, with the appropriate prior warning of the monitoring. This online article on Workplace Privacy (http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs7-work.htm) states that, at least in the US:

No. Not illegal as long as the employee knows they're being monitored. However highly illegal otherwise, And that was what I was quoting to.

Any attempt to fire a worker on those grounds will not only fail but also force the company to pay the worker a hefty fine on the grounds of invasion of privacy.

Over here in Portugal we go a little step forward and also guarantee that any software used to monitor the worker activity - if used, and found to be the cause of a lack of productivity levels - cannot be used to claim said lack of productivity.

This was so because some earlier in-place software caused either frequent crashes or forced older computers performance to a crawl and some companies, as incredible as it may seem, were trying to use that against the workers when they were downsizing.

Neo1
03-21-2008, 12:15 PM
Even with an appropriate notice to staff? If I remember correctly, I read in a local newspaper that such monitoring was permitted in Singapore, with the appropriate prior warning of the monitoring. This online article on Workplace Privacy (http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs7-work.htm) states that, at least in the US:

If the "victim" knows that someone is monitoring, it is not spying. Then it is simply supervising whatever this individual is doing, and i don't believe this is illegal in any countries, as long as it does not conflict with any laws of privacy (Which won't be the case if the person being spied on is @ work)...

JFonseka
03-21-2008, 04:58 PM
I am well aware of what the law says, and if I was an employer, I would let the employee know.

I am just saying it's ridiculous to call them 'ethics' if they are constantly under revision and changing criteria and dependent of places where they are enforced. Ethics can't be changing all the time.

So to call it ethics and then to quote the 'law' is just laughable.

Mario F.
03-21-2008, 05:26 PM
So to call it ethics and then to quote the 'law' is just laughable.

The spirit of the law is deeply ingrained on a society's moral and ethical values. So it's not ridiculous. Laws may change, but they do not derail from the society's values.

Monitoring workers without their knowledge has two major problems. One is ethical, the other functional.

The ethical problem is that it is the closest you get to repression. It's no different a mechanism than that used by many dictatorships in the past and in the present. No free society will lightly accept this.

The functional problem is that it is designed to punish, not to avoid the problem. If instead the workers know they are being monitored, you avoid the problem. In fact you are even more effective because a worker still caught using the company resources for their own personal benefit is knowingly breaking the rules. As I see it, this gives the company more arguments.

Elysia
03-22-2008, 01:26 AM
Disregarding ethics is like smashing yourself with a hammer. How much do you know about ethics? They exist everywhere and is a fine line between order and disorder. Some of the ethics is even made into laws. So ethics has a higher purpose than laws, really. I wouldn't call it laughable, because the law came from the ethics.

heras
03-22-2008, 05:14 AM
Instead of spying, you could save yourself the trouble and use something like Dansguardian. There must be something similar for Windows platforms.

JFonseka
03-24-2008, 10:32 AM
The spirit of the law is deeply ingrained on a society's moral and ethical values. So it's not ridiculous. Laws may change, but they do not derail from the society's values.

Monitoring workers without their knowledge has two major problems. One is ethical, the other functional.

The ethical problem is that it is the closest you get to repression. It's no different a mechanism than that used by many dictatorships in the past and in the present. No free society will lightly accept this.

The functional problem is that it is designed to punish, not to avoid the problem. If instead the workers know they are being monitored, you avoid the problem. In fact you are even more effective because a worker still caught using the company resources for their own personal benefit is knowingly breaking the rules. As I see it, this gives the company more arguments.

'Spirit of the law' - Ok, once we can define more clearly abstract ideas, then perhaps I will bother with a proper response.

JFonseka
03-24-2008, 10:34 AM
Disregarding ethics is like smashing yourself with a hammer. How much do you know about ethics? They exist everywhere and is a fine line between order and disorder. Some of the ethics is even made into laws. So ethics has a higher purpose than laws, really. I wouldn't call it laughable, because the law came from the ethics.

I don't disregard ethics, I was being rather sarcastic in some posts, but more in a point to prove that implicitly quoting the law which is always in change by hypocrites is hardly the way to go about proving your point.

How much do I know about ethics? Well I do know the basis for 'ethics' in western civilization has had it's root in Christianity, but is slowly drifting from that. And that 'ethics' according to sharia law is vastly different. Going deeper into that, perhaps I can, but what's the point, this is hardly the place

Elysia
03-24-2008, 10:36 AM
Ethics does not root in any religion. It roots from what we think is right and wrong (as in our species, humans).

JFonseka
03-24-2008, 10:42 AM
Ethics does not root in any religion. It roots from what we think is right and wrong (as in our species, humans).

'what we think is right or wrong' - ha, that varies from person to person, from country to country and institution to institution.

Tribes in africa have different rights and wrongs, sharia law has different rights and wrongs, western civilization has rights and wrongs and etc. The ethics you refer to are based in Christianity as the roman empire was taken over and christian influence spread across europe, and the pilgrims took it across to america.

It's proof, when you look and see that 'ethics' vary halfway across the world in the middle east, where Christian influence was resisted.

Case closed.

Elysia
03-24-2008, 10:45 AM
That is why ethics is such a difficult matter - because everyone has different opinions. And that is also why it's ethics and not laws.
And I do not base it on Christianity. A lot of people, in different countries, not limited to Christianity, believes that spying is not a very nice thing. It's against most of our natures.