Steve,
The other issues (which I don't particularly have an opinion on
either way), I think your original post may have missed the mark just a
bit. My reading of the thread was as follows:
1) The gentleman from Hitachi posted a patch for UltraVNC to the RealVNC
mailing list, asking that it be considered for possible inclusion in a
future release of RealVNC.
2) James W. pointed out that a patch against UltraVNC doesn't really
help get it into RealVNC, as the code bases/protocols/etc. are
different, and that if he wanted to help get it into RealVNC (which was
presumably his reason for posting in the first place), it would help if
he submitted a patch against *either* RealVNC or TightVNC.
3) You responded asking why the OP should limit themselves to a single
version of a VNC flavor when they could patch against both, but I didn't
see anyone suggesting that he do so....
I might be wrong, but that's the way I read it....
--
Kelly F. Hickel
Senior Software Architect
MQSoftware, Inc
952.345.8677
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Steve Bostedor
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 4:12 PM
> To: 'James Weatherall'
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Maybe Spam: RE: Hitachi-ZYWRLE Encoding Number (was RE:
> Introduction of New VNC codec)
>
> James,
>
> Let me start by pointing to a survey that I have on the Bozteck
> website.
> http://www.vncscan.com/vs/asppollx/results.asp
>
> It shows that UltraVNC and TightVNC are installed on far more systems
> than
> RealVNC. They should not be downplayed as just hobby projects with
> this
> much of the user base using their product. I think that all three
> brands
> are outstanding but if I wanted to be sure that my contributions were
> going
> to make it to the most VNC users, I would look in their direction
> first.
>
> I don't mean to turn this into this big endorsement for TightVNC and
> UltraVNC. I have no direct association with any of the VNC projects
> so I
> really have no bias in that regard. All three of these flavors or
> brands of
> VNC have their strengths and weaknesses. That's the beauty of open
> source
> and the options that it creates.
>
> Thank you for the response and please don't take this as anything
> negative.
> I think that the work that you've done with VNC is commendable.
>
> I defend my use of the word "brand" with the dictionary definition:
>
> brand (brbnd) n.
>
> 1.
> 1. A trademark or distinctive name identifying a product or a
> manufacturer.
> 2. A product line so identified: a popular brand of soap.
> 3. A distinctive category; a particular kind: a brand of
> comedy
> that I do not care for.
> 2. A mark indicating identity or ownership, burned on the hide of
> an
> animal with a hot iron.
>
> UltraVNC an TightVNC are brands by definition just like Redhat and
> Fedora
> are brand names of the open source project named Linux. They identify
> their
> spin-off of VNC by name. You don't need to make money from something
> to be
> a brand. :)
>
> I understand that you want to create the perception that it's not
> really VNC
> unless it's on your new code base. I do contest, however, that there
> is a
> thriving open source project started by AT&T in 1999 and the project
> is
> named VNC. You where one of the developers that worked on the project
> back
> then. You have the respect of us all for your contributions to the
> project.
>
> While it was open source, TightVNC and UltraVNC spawned off with
> compatible
> versions with new features because the guys at AT&T where not adding
> those
> features fast enough. You can still take a standard VNC 3.x (even the
> one
> from RealVNC) client and connect to an UltraVNC server and visa-versa.
> There is still 100% backwards compatibility.
>
> When AT&T shut the project down and you guys started your own company
> called
> RealVNC, you created a new proprietary code base that was no longer
> covered
> under the GPL. You still have the free one and that is maintained
> completely by your new company, but you also have your proprietary
> closed
> source versions that you now sell. I like this because it gives you
> guys
> some funds to make the product even better!
>
> The versions that you currently sell (although branded as REAL VNC)
> are no
> longer VNC compatible with the original VNC project. The UltraVNC and
> TightVNC flavors are still 100% compatible with the original VNC code
> base
> while still supporting all of their new features that you mentioned.
>
>
> I would be more apt to agree with you, James, if TightVNC and UltraVNC
> where
> just some small "hobby projects" that didn't have many users but the
> reality
> is that they have a larger user base than RealVNC does and that
> deserves
> recognition.
>
> I hope that I havent offended you by contesting the point of view.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Steve Bostedor
> Bozteck Solutions
> http://www.bozteck.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Take control of your network with
> VNCScan Enterprise Network Manager
> Download: http://www.vncscan.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Weatherall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 4:30 PM
> To: Steve Bostedor
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Maybe Spam: RE: Hitachi-ZYWRLE Encoding Number (was RE:
> Introduction of New VNC codec)
>
> Steve,
>
> You've both missed the point and are unfortunately mistaken.
>
> It's not a question of "branding", it's a question of protocol
> compatibility. The UltraVNC project does not retain compatibility
> with
> the RFB protocol, which is why it isn't compatible with standard VNC
> releases. By contrast, the TightVNC hobby project has been able to
> proceed, adding custom features to our core system and using their own
> custom protocol elemants while retaining compatiility with the
> standard.
>
> As far as "branding" is concerned, please bear in mind that VNC is
> developed by RealVNC Ltd. TightVNC and UltraVNC are projects based on
> our
> codebase, not "brands" of our software.
>
> I hope this clarifies your misunderstanding of the situation. Your
> customers will be happier knowing that your products use fully
> VNC-compatible software rather than software that breaks compatibility
> with the protocol!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wez @ RealVNC Ltd
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Steve Bostedor wrote:
>
> > James and everyone else,
> >
> > I agree that it's not RealVNC 4.x brand compatible but it is VNC
> compatible
> > in the sense that it is using a VNC protocol and works with any VNC
> that
> is
> > not the RealVNC brand 4.x base. That's like saying that it's not
> Microsoft
> > Windows compatible unless it runs on Windows Vista. :)
> >
> > UltraVNC and TightVNC are very popular versions of VNC that are
> actively
> > developed and very feature rich thanks to these "hobbiests". They
> should
> > not be ignored simply because they don't use the same code base as
> the
> > RealVNC branded 4.x code base.
> >
> >
> > I don't mean to be the annoying accuracy cop here but this
> distinction
> needs
> > to be clear. UltraVNC and RightVNC are RFB compatible VNC servers
> that
> > branch from and improve upon the original 3.x code base while
> maintaining
> > backwards compatibility (unlike the 4.x code base).
> >
> > Steve Bostedor
> > Bozteck Solutions
> > http://www.bozteck.com
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Take control of your network with
> > VNCScan Enterprise Network Manager
> > Download: http://www.vncscan.com
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: James Weatherall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 1:01 PM
> > To: 'Steve Bostedor'; [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: Hitachi-ZYWRLE Encoding Number (was RE: Introduction of
> New
> VNC
> > codec)
> >
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > As I pointed out in my original response, the problem with them
> having
> > patched against the UltraVNC hobby project is that that's not
> > VNC-compatible. Better to product patches against something
> VNC-compatible,
> > or, better still, the standard VNC codebase, if you want people to
> be able
> > to use it!
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Wez @ RealVNC Ltd.
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Steve Bostedor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: 02 February 2007 17:29
> > > To: 'James Weatherall'; 'Hitachi Systems & Services, Ltd.';
> > > [email protected]
> > > Subject: RE: Hitachi-ZYWRLE Encoding Number (was RE:
> > > Introduction of New VNC codec)
> > >
> > > Why not patch against both? The UltraVNC and TightVNC
> > > flavors are just as
> > > popular as RealVNC. Why limit yourself to just one version of
> VNC?
> > >
> > >
> > > Steve Bostedor
> > > Bozteck Solutions
> > > http://www.bozteck.com
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > > Take control of your network with
> > > VNCScan Enterprise Network Manager
> > > Download: http://www.vncscan.com
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> > > Behalf Of James Weatherall
> > > Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 7:31 AM
> > > To: 'Hitachi Systems & Services, Ltd.'; [email protected]
> > > Subject: Hitachi-ZYWRLE Encoding Number (was RE: Introduction
> > > of New VNC
> > > codec)
> > >
> > > Hi Noriaki-san,
> > >
> > > I've had encoding number 17 allocated to Hitachi ZYWRLE - using
> this
> > > encoding number will ensure compatibility with standard VNC and
> > > VNC-compatible releases. The next release of the VNC codebase
> will
> > > therefore include an encoding "place-holder":
> > >
> > > const int encoding3rdPartyHitachiZYWRLE = 17;
> > >
> > > > >I note that you have a version of the UltraVNC hobby project
> > > > patched with
> > > > >your scheme. Since the UltraVNC project is not
> > > > VNC-compatible, you will
> > > > >need to switch to a VNC-compatible codebase if you want to
> > > > provides VNC
> > > > >viewers & servers with your custom encoding.
> > > >
> > > > You say that I need to make patch for RealVNC server, don't you?
> > > > (Sorry to my poor understanding to English...)
> > >
> > > Not necessarily - which particular VNC version, or VNC-based
> > > software, you'd
> > > like to patch your encoding against is entirely up to you. I'd
> would
> > > recommend either patching against the standard VNC release, or a
> > > VNC-compatible project such as TightVNC.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dr James Weatherall
> > > Chief Engineering Officer - http://www.realvnc.com - RealVNC Ltd
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > VNC-List mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > To remove yourself from the list visit:
> > > http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Dr. James "Wez" Weatherall
> --
> Chief Engineering Officer
> RealVNC Ltd. - The home of VNC - http://www.realvnc.com
> _______________________________________________
> VNC-List mailing list
> [email protected]
> To remove yourself from the list visit:
> http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
_______________________________________________
VNC-List mailing list
[email protected]
To remove yourself from the list visit:
http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
