Forks? (was Re: Tight VNC)

W. Brian Blevins brian.blevins "at"
Fri, 24 Aug 2001 13:09:57 +0000

Illtud and Freddy,

> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 17:44:21 +0100
> From: Illtud Daniel <illtud.daniel "at">
> Subject: Forks? (was Re: Tight VNC)
> Freddy Jensen wrote:
> > I have been following some of the email exchange
> > reg. TightVNC, and I am curious about whether it
> > will eventually be incorporated into the main
> > codebase that is maintained at att?
> Me too! Seems to me that what with Tridia/Tight/AT&T versions
> all forking off in different directions (somebody correct me
> if I'm wrong & there's plans to merge diffs or patches) that
> there's an overall loss to the user community as a whole. One
> of the problems (I guess) is that what would traditionally be
> compile-time options (under *ix) don't really work so well
> when so many of the platforms VNC is available for aren't
> platforms where people are used to compiling stuff <cough>
> doze<cough> and so the project forks rather than grows. Pity.
> Is it possible to pull it all together again?

We have the Tight 1.2.0 patches from Constantin and will be
integrating those into TridiaVNC.

As far as AT&T integrating the Tight encoding, I doubt that
will happen.  They seem to have come to the conclusion that
hextile achieves a sort of optimum for CPU usage versus
level of compression.  Of course, a brief comment from
someone at AT&T would be much preferrable to my musings.

Then there is the whole RFB 4.0 and 5.0 work that is going
on.  I'm beginning to wonder if we will ever see source code
or documentation on that work.  Again, any comments from
AT&T would be much appreciated.

TridiaVNC, the cross-platform, open source, remote control solution.   and
To unsubscribe, send a message with the line: unsubscribe vnc-list
to majordomo "at"
See also: