Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 18:23:08 -0800 From: perryh@pluto.rain.com To: cyberleo@cyberleo.net Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bogus "No protocol specified" message Message-ID: <50f0c90c.KpdsU8zltL2eIteD%perryh@pluto.rain.com> In-Reply-To: <50EF609F.1090306@cyberleo.net> References: <50ef3c36.DOThr42hGxWWeg6h%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <50EF609F.1090306@cyberleo.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
CyberLeo Kitsana <cyberleo@cyberleo.net> wrote: > On 01/10/2013 05:09 PM, Perry Hutchison wrote: > > When trying to open an X application on a remote display, > > I am getting > > > > No protocol specified > > Error: cannot open display: 192.168.200.61:0 > > > > The "No protocol specified" message is bogus: the display is > > specified correctly*, and the same operation -- with exactly > > the same setting of DISPLAY -- was working yesterday ... > > > > What does that message actually mean, and how do I fix it? > > The error is with regards to the X protocol, not the TCP or UNIX socket > protocol. Check that both sides have compatible and matching X authority > information using xauth(1), or that the connecting host or user was > allowed to connect using xhost(1). The problem does indeed have something to do with authority/permission, since "xhost +" fixes it. (Not the best solution, but sufficient to demonstrate where the trouble lies.) I still claim that the message is bogus. It's now perfectly clear that both ends know exactly what protocol to use, and they are using it -- else telling the server to accept all remote connections would have made no difference. The message should mention authority and/or permission, instead of pretending that the client can't figure out what protocol to use because none was "specified".
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50f0c90c.KpdsU8zltL2eIteD%perryh>