Hi Matthew Thank you for the information. It looks like it was a good decision to go for tigervnc. Tigervnc have just recently been included in unstable and testing and will be part of the next stable release.
I have the intention to remove both tightvnc and vnc4 due to the lack of upstream development and go only for tigervnc. However I would like to know more about reactions on tigervnc (bugs) before they are finally requested for removal. Best regards // Ola On 8 November 2016 at 17:24, Matthew Gabeler-Lee <chee...@fastcat.org> wrote: > On Sat, 3 Sep 2016, Ola Lundqvist wrote: > > Also interesting that the problem goes away with vnc4server. >> > > I just came across tigervnc which has the tight protocol support and does > not suffer from this bug. > > The tigervnc website says it's based on the newer vnc4 branch of tightvnc > that never got released, so this may be a bugfix in vnc4 that was not in > the older tightvnc 1.3 code. > > What client software do you use? >> > > I tried many, including vinagre, remmina, and the uber-basic vncviewer, > all had exactly the same problem. > > #### > > FWIW, since tigervnc does everything (for me) that tightvnc did, and > doesn't have this bug, switching to that package functions as a "fix" for > this for me, and I'm no longer concerned about tightvnc, esp. since it > seems to be effectively unmaintained upstream, at least for open source > linux packaging. > > -- > -Matt > "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away". > -- Philip K. Dick > GPG fingerprint: 0061 15DF D282 D4A9 57CE 77C5 16AF 1460 4A3C C4E9 > -- --- Inguza Technology AB --- MSc in Information Technology ---- / o...@inguza.com Folkebogatan 26 \ | o...@debian.org 654 68 KARLSTAD | | http://inguza.com/ Mobile: +46 (0)70-332 1551 | \ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 / ---------------------------------------------------------------
