>
> > I have used VNC but a little - primarily for accessing a Win95 box from a
> > Linux box. A casual observation is that over a 10 MBps ethernet it seems
> > a bit sluggish. That might be a problem with Windows rather than VNC.
> >
> > One thing I like about VNC is that the client software (which runs on the
> > remote terminal - opposite of X) is SMALL compared to running an X server.
> > There are VNC servers for DOS, GEOS, Windows95 and more, I haven't tried
> > them all. In theory, VNC will allow you to run with a MUCH thinner
> > client.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't VNC a remote-control program along the lines
> of pcAnywhere? I have a copy of an article from SunWorld, haven't quite looked
> at it closely enough -- brain hurt at the moment. But if it is a remote-control
> program, that might mean that the VNC server PC also has to update the display.
> Problem with this is that a buggy display driver can cause some instability with
> the server PC. Sure, you might be able to reboot it remotely, but that's one
> nuisance that X across a network connection obviates.
>
vnc is more of a remote control program. it captures the screen of the
application running on the server. but, running a vnc server on linux
enable a person from for example a windows box or another linux box to
connect to a some sort of X server that vnc provides called xvnc. this vnx
x server runs like any ordinary X server. but...running vnc client
requires your to have X installed and running in order to use the vnc
client.
to me vnc looks like a hybrid between and full X server and a remote
control program.
> OTOH, if VNC is more like X than pcAnywhere, I retreat with a red face <g>
>
i have not tried pcAnywhere.
---------------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delta: The kids will love our inflatable slides. -- David Letterman
-
Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph
To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
