Starting a second X server to be access remotely via VNC - problems

[Svenstaro]

I'm trying to run a virtual WinXPx64 on my Ubuntux64 using VMWare started by tightvncserver which is started by X on another screen.
On Debian, I accomplished it by running this script:
(with the only exception that on Debian I use xtightvnc instead of tightvncserver)

#!/bin/sh

PATH=/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/bin/X11:/usr/local/bin:/sbin:/usr/sbin:/usr/local/sbin
DISPLAY=localhost:1

# for xauth
export HOME=/root

case "$1" in
start)
echo -n "Starting tightvncserver"
cd /opt/vmware
nohup startx "vmware -x -q /opt/vmware/winxpimage" -- /usr/bin/tightvncserver :1 -geometry 1280x1024 -depth 16 -rfbauth /root/.vnc/passwd 2> /var/log/vmware-vnc/xvnc-err.log > /var/log/vmware-vnc/xvnc.log &
echo "."
;;

restart)
/etc/init.d/vmware-vnc stop
/etc/init.d/vmware-vnc start
;;

stop)
echo -n "Stopping "
killall
;;

*)
echo "Usage: /etc/init.d/vmware-vnc {start|stop|restart}"
exit 1
;;
esac

exit 0


Sadly, this no longer works on Ubuntu. The error I get is:

Xlib: connection to ":1.0" refused by server
Xlib: Invalid MIT-MAGIC-COOKIE-1 key

Now I did a bit of research on the magic cookie and added myself to the magic cookie list.
xauth list
machine/unix:0 MIT-MAGIC-COOKIE-1 5663813b335cc574f93eec55d750ce43
localhost.localdomain/unix:0 MIT-MAGIC-COOKIE-1 5663813b335cc574f93eec55d750ce43
machine:1 MIT-MAGIC-COOKIE-1 40de4f8e6aa92481d82a5cfa53af1d57
machine/unix:1 MIT-MAGIC-COOKIE-1 40de4f8e6aa92481d82a5cfa53af1d57
localhost:1 MIT-MAGIC-COOKIE-1 fd8a566465091ba6e8a215796e68826c
localhost.localdomain/unix:1 MIT-MAGIC-COOKIE-1 fd8a566465091ba6e8a215796e68826c
machine:0 MIT-MAGIC-COOKIE-1 df8d5581e2e0efa8667c8c6fb853c568


Still no-go. Ideas?

[Svenstaro]

Ah shoot! The only difference WAS the problem. I didn't even think about THAT! I'm now using Xvnc, tightvncserver wasn't meant to be run on another display.

[HermanAB]

SSH is just so much less trouble and it is secure too.

Cheers,

Herman

[Svenstaro]

You mean like tunneling VNC through SSH? Well actually it doesn't really matter because the server is local. If it was through WAN I'd tunnel through SSH of course.