On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 12:44:06PM +0200, Pierre Ossman wrote: > 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.
Right you are. But if all other vnc implementations start to use forked RFB spec then RealVNC will be alone and people might stop using it. But it is really long-future. > 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. Well, if you send such proposal to public list I think it will end with flame and we won't be able to reach consensus. I prefer non-public mail to other VNC developers :) Adam -- Adam Tkac, Red Hat, Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Tigervnc-devel mailing list Tigervnc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tigervnc-devel
