On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 01:03:54PM +0100, Rudi De Vos wrote: > Const's TightVNC is essential, but the tight version is not a good > starting point.
Why is that? Because it is not as modularized as we would like? Is there a better starting point, or do you think it would be best to build a new code base from the ground up? I'd certainly like to see as much reuse as possible. > Encoders should be plug-ins (client and server site). The same for > authentication and other stuff. Agreed. > Take a standard VNC (ex AT&T) and modified it to use plug-ins. So > everybody can work on the parts and platforms they know the best, > encoders authentication, ssh,scaling.... I'd like to see the protocol support provided by LibVNCServer [http://libvncserver.sourceforge.net] or something like it. Having a library that other projects can use would be a good thing. > My focus is speeding up winvnc-server Excellent. My experience is more on the Unix side, but my focus is to do what I can to help the emergence of a de facto standard VNC distribution and ease the fragmentation woes. -- Mike Ossmann, Tarantella/UNIX Engineer/Instructor Alternative Technology, Inc. http://www.alttech.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the line: 'unsubscribe vnc-list' in the message BODY See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------
