Implementing Audio into a Linux based system that uses VNC

William Hooper
Tue Nov 12 20:36:01 2002

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> [] On Behalf Of Bruce Lilly
> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 1:45 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Implementing Audio into a Linux based system 
> that uses VNC
> > From: "William Hooper" <>
> > Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 08:22:32 -0500
> > Not to mention how "big" VNC might get adding this code (I haven't 
> > looked so I don't know how "big" nasd would be).
> So it's an open issue until somebody actually determines the 
> size implications.
True.  Not having to do any install on the viewer, having it fit on a
floppy disk, and having a fully fuction java based viewer are all
desirable, though.

> > Just saying "Add sound support" doesn't make it easy.  I 
> for one agree 
> > with the fact VNC does it's one thing well, why try to tack on more 
> > things to make it more complex?
> If the "one thing" is remoting the human-computer interface, 
> VNC lacks sound support, which is an integral part of the 
> HCI, so cannot be said to do that well.  If the "one thing" 
> is mere remote frame buffer display, then you're effectively 
> arguing that mouse and keyboard support should be ripped out 
> to reduce size.  Is that really your opinion?

>From :
"It is remote control software which allows you to view and interact
with one computer (the "server") using a simple program (the "viewer")
on another computer anywhere on the Internet."

> Some other requests for added features which are frequently 
> proposed (e.g. file transfer, printing) are unrelated to the 
> HCI; moreover, there are readily available auxiliary programs 
> (e.g. ftp, lpr/lpd) which provide those features.  The same 
> cannot be said for sound support. 

You are still missing the complexity of making these features (sound,
file transfer, printing) in a truly cross-platform way so that they fit
in with the existing VNC.  I have no problem with the approach taken by
people that want file transfer, printing, etc.  They have taking the
original GPL VNC code and added the features they wanted.  In most cases
that I've seen they are giving up cross-platform support and some
backward compatibility.  If someone wanted to create a new "SoundVNC" I
would have no problem with it.  I just don't see where the effort would
benefit most people that use RealVNC.

William Hooper