On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:15:08 +0200 Adam Tkac <at...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > I think it is the best long-term approach. But we have to take an > action very carefully. In the end we could have RFC for RFB protocol. > > I would like to know status of other VNC developers (qemu, TightVNC, > x11vnc, UltraVNC etc) and of course, status from RealVNC. Then if we > get wide support we could start working on that. > RealVNC's interest in other VNC implementations is rather clear. Even if we can force them to take additions under the threat of a fork, I don't think such management is beneficial to the VNC ecosystem. Reaching the other VNC people could be done via vnc-list, but that is to a large extent a RealVNC list, not a generic VNC list. I'm not sure it would be good form posting something like this. Rgds -- Pierre Ossman OpenSource-based Thin Client Technology System Developer Telephone: +46-13-21 46 00 Cendio AB Web: http://www.cendio.com
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Tigervnc-devel mailing list Tigervnc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tigervnc-devel
