>> ... how does this affect the chances of getting VirtualGL and TurboVNC >> cleanly deployed within opensolaris, and later Solaris proper? > > I don't know that it does - getting those added rely on someone wanting > them enough to do the work.
:) > The primary reason I selected RealVNC was that it builds on the current > Xorg sources, and don't introduce yet-another-Xserver source base, > especially not the ancient XFree86 3.3.6 that is missing needed > extensions for accessibility, JDS, compositing managers, and missing the > last decade or so worth of security fixes and bug fixes. If one of the > other Xvnc forks, such as TurboVNC or TightVNC could be similarly built, > I would see little problem in replacing RealVNC with one of them. I just poked around at the tightvnc source that debian is using. It does rely on ancient XF86 bits. I expect that updating that would probably be pretty painful, but a good project for someone with a lot more free time than I have on hand... I took a poke around in the x11vnc sources as well - it seems to have many much less ancient files inside it than the vanilla tightvnc does. --elijah
