On 17 December 2010 15:09, Yogesh Girikumar <[email protected]> wrote: > 2010/12/17 Sathishkumar Duraisamy <[email protected]> > >> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 2:57 PM, R.Kanagaraj (RK) <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> >> > A very good idea. I welcome the developer for it. >> > >> > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Shrinivasan T <[email protected] >> > >wrote: >> >> > > Is it possible for us to create a FOSS alternate for Teamviewer? >> > > >> > > Shall we start working on this? >> >> >> Thats good idea. I personally haven't used teamviewer. If there is no FOSS >> alternative, then we proceed. > > > At the moment, there doesn't seem to be any good alternatives. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_remote_desktop_software > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_remote_desktop_software>The > underlying protocols (on which the whole issue of remote desktops are based) > also need some programming love.
These are my thoughts, Remote desktop software and vpn are not the same. You can do remote desktop to a machine on public ip open on internet and you have sufficient credentials and needed ports are open. For this we already have solutions in place like remote desktop (RDC, remote desktop connection) for windows from Linux 9atleast it is available in ubuntu and fedora) and vnc and x11 are available in Linux. But what teamviewer does that is not available in other tools is that it make session sharing possible over port 80 (i think so), it is able to navigate through proxies. This remote desktop sharing is made possible by creating a invisble vpn session and that session is given to only a GUI that does remote desktop and file transfer and remote audio possible. So analysing protocols willl be long way to do it. Instead we should be able to reverse engineer the product, like the way gnu makes many of its things work on windows and build a opensource quivalent. with regards, ashwin _______________________________________________ ILUGC Mailing List: http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
