Valid points, but the one about having to be logged in the same on both machines doesn't seem to be true. I'm testing it right now without a problem with that.
The lack of Backward compatibility is understandable. Not much of a point having NT authentication if the server can choose to ignore it :-) We disable the miniserver here, so that not a big one to us. >From what I can tell, the SOE group is a department inside citigroup. It stands for "Standard Operating Environment". It explains the limitations of the product as well. It is only designed for a very specific use. I doubt we have a channel for contacting them. Our best bet is probably Justin, since he probably just got this from his IT department. >A quick look at the docs points out a number of problems: > >- No HTTP miniserver >- No Viewer for non-Windows systems >- Standard VNC viewer will not work >- You have to be logged in to NT as the same user on both machines (A >pain in my case because I have different accounts for my personal >machine and most machines I would want to make changes remotely to) > >There also seems to be a bit of FUD about VNC being insecure because it >keeps a "password file". Nope, on Windows platforms it is in the >registry, and on NT based systems you can restrict it. > >Sound interesting in theory, but isn't as flexible as RealVNC. If you >can live with the constraints it might be useful. Anyone know what >happened to the "PC-SOE" group that produced this? > >-- >William _______________________________________________ VNC-List mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
