I'm interested to know what the reasons were for switching from TightVNC to RealVNC. I know that earlier versions of RedHat/Fedora Linux used TightVNC, but now RealVNC seems to have replaced it.
Understand, I'm not in disagreement with the change, but as I am evaluating both for a project, I'm curious.
-Steve Bergman
Is it because RealVNC is popular in Windows systems?
I could not connect from FC2 to a Windows box with RealVNC on it.
Timothy.
Steve Bergman wrote:
I'm interested to know what the reasons were for switching from TightVNC to RealVNC. I know that earlier versions of RedHat/Fedora Linux used TightVNC, but now RealVNC seems to have replaced it.
Understand, I'm not in disagreement with the change, but as I am evaluating both for a project, I'm curious.
-Steve Bergman
I know this sounds dopey but check that the VNC server is running on your windows pc. Check there are no firewalls blocking it. Which version of VNC are you running on the windows pc? (Not that that should make much difference). Have you tried to remote in based on IP address or PC name? Can you connect with other machine that you might have on your network? Is the firewall on you linux pc blocking vnc? Also - have you tried to connect via http. I sometimes connect with my machines this way (example :- http://<yourmachinesname-goes-here>:5800). Hope you get it sorted. regards caomhim
-- Original Message -- Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 08:59:29 -0500 (EST) From: "William Hooper" whooperhsd3@earthlink.net To: fedora-list@redhat.com Subject: Re: Why the switch from TightVNC to RealVNC? Reply-To: For users of Fedora Core releases fedora-list@redhat.com
Timothy Ha said:
I could not connect from FC2 to a Windows box with RealVNC on it.
Works for me. Perhaps you can open your on thread with some details so
we
can try to help you.
-- William Hooper
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
regards
Kevin Williams
___________________________________________________________
FREE weekend phone calls! NO monthly fee, NO contract!
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/services/smarttalk/?StartupCode=OL063&srccode=C...
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 08:18:37PM -0600, Steve Bergman wrote:
I'm interested to know what the reasons were for switching from TightVNC to RealVNC. I know that earlier versions of RedHat/Fedora Linux used TightVNC, but now RealVNC seems to have replaced it.
The original VNC is X-based, that is to say you need an X tree to build it inside. In Fedora Core 3 we ship RealVNC built against xorg-x11-6.8.1. If a security problem is discovered in xorg-x11, and that problem affects the VNC modules built against it, it is a simple matter to apply the patch and rebuild the VNC package. The xorg-x11 project is actively maintained.
The TightVNC project, on the other hand, is still based on XFree86 3.3.x (not even 4.x). As I understand it, there *are* security problems in that release, they remain unfixed, and will continue to remain unfixed. XFree86 3.3.x is not undergoing any maintenance.
So it's a simple choice really.
I spoke to the TightVNC maintainer a while ago asking when he would port to a newer X base, and he said it was on his to-do list -- but until that happens, we can't really ship such an old version of the X code that it builds against.
Tim. */
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:27:50 +0000, Tim Waugh twaugh@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 08:18:37PM -0600, Steve Bergman wrote:
I'm interested to know what the reasons were for switching from TightVNC to RealVNC. I know that earlier versions of RedHat/Fedora Linux used TightVNC, but now RealVNC seems to have replaced it.
The original VNC is X-based, that is to say you need an X tree to build it inside. In Fedora Core 3 we ship RealVNC built against xorg-x11-6.8.1. If a security problem is discovered in xorg-x11, and that problem affects the VNC modules built against it, it is a simple matter to apply the patch and rebuild the VNC package. The xorg-x11 project is actively maintained.
The TightVNC project, on the other hand, is still based on XFree86 3.3.x (not even 4.x). As I understand it, there *are* security problems in that release, they remain unfixed, and will continue to remain unfixed. XFree86 3.3.x is not undergoing any maintenance.
So it's a simple choice really.
I spoke to the TightVNC maintainer a while ago asking when he would port to a newer X base, and he said it was on his to-do list -- but until that happens, we can't really ship such an old version of the X code that it builds against.
Is this just the daemon or is the tightvnc viewer a problem as well?
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 06:21:01PM -0500, Leonard Isham wrote:
Is this just the daemon or is the tightvnc viewer a problem as well?
The viewer is indeed a standalone program, and does not need to be compiled against an X tree. However, if you you a TightVNC viewer against a RealVNC server, or a RealVNC viewer against a TightVNC server, I think it's true that you won't get as efficient a connection as if you stick to one source.
TightVNC provides the 'tight' encoding, which RealVNC does not have support for. Conversely, RealVNC provides the 'ZRLE' encoding, which (as far as I know) TightVNC does not have support for.
RealVNC also allows colour-reduction in a different way than TightVNC (I think I'm right in recalling that TightVNC has a way of doing this).
Tim. */