Sure; my point is the method used for tying ports and displays together. It makes use of custom lower-numbered ports significantly more difficult.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Palocz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, 2002-03-19 13:12 Subject: RE: The Next Generation display numbers : I wish people would understand that the display number is just part of the : port number. : That in the terminal services world, or in Unix, it is important. : : Steve : : -----Original Message----- : From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] : [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alex K. : Angelopoulos : Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 12:30 PM : To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Subject: VNC:The Next Generation display numbers : : : FWIW, if this hasn't been discussed - I would dearly love to see VNC go to a : more "traditional" approach in numbering displays - e.g., using a port : number for specification of ports used instead of an arbitrary display : number based on 5900... this causes too many headaches. : --------------------------------------------------------------------- : 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 : --------------------------------------------------------------------- : --------------------------------------------------------------------- : 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 : --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
