I decided to stick with "realvnc". The viewer seems to work with enlightenment better; tightvnc had issues with "fullscreen" going all the way down to the bottom of the screen. It also had issues with responding to F-8, which is supposed to bring up the vncviewer menu.
I also read that recent versions of realvnc (>3.3.3) also use compression and should be as fast as tightvnc. So in the interest of saving time, I just stuck with realvnc. On Tue 27 Jul 04, 1:08 PM, Norm Matloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > I've been using VNC for about a year now. When I am away from home and > office and accessing my office Linux box from public terminals (which > alas, are always MS Wins), VNC is invaluable. However, I am also > frustrated by its minor shortcomings, such as: > > * Certain control characters, notably ctrl-a, do not seem to work. Wierd. Which vnc are you using? I opened a gvim instance and was able to pass a control-a to gvim. > * Occasionally the windowing system of the client gets so hopelessly > messed up that the client needs to be rebooted. Yuck. Thankfully, I haven't seen that yet (although I've only been using VNC for a few hours how). > * Since VNC by definition is trying to fit a whole desktop screen > into a browser space, one must do scrolling, and this becomes > quite annoying. Yeah. But when it gets too annoying, I switch both desktops to the same resolution. They're normally almost the same anyhow. > * VNC does tend to be slow. Yeah, a bit. I wouldn't run any games, but for something like visual C++, I'm finding that it's good enough. Pete _______________________________________________ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
