Merging Ultr@VNC code into RealVNC?
mfedyk "at" matchmail.com
Wed Dec 17 23:31:01 2003
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:22:56PM -0500, William Hooper wrote:
> Mike Fedyk said:
> >why VNC has
> > at
> > least five seperate open source projects.
> Why not? Each project is generally focusing on a different thing.
> > There seems to be some interest in the Ultr "at" VNC to merge the code with
> > RealVNC, but there were concerns that since Ultr "at" VNC is Win32 focused that
> > it wouldn't be accepted by RealVNC.
> Probably a fair statement. One of RealVNC's core values is that it is
RealVNC-win32 already has "service" support, and a different installer, than
unix. Unix has an Xserver in their VNC server (which you're working on
splitting out to make a plugin for Xfree86), so there is already
infrastructure to have platform specific code and features. How is this any
different than having a couple developers working on windows specific code?
> > I don't really have the skills to merge the two together, but I'd love to
> > see the NTLM support in RealVNC, and not have to switch to Ultr "at" VNC to get
> > it.
> Quoting the RealVNC v4 docs:
> "The Authentication page allows you to configure the required level of
> authentication of incoming VNC Viewer connections. At present, only two
> levels are provided - no authentication or classic VNC authentication.
> Some new authentication methods are in development, so expect this page to
So why reinvent the wheel? Why not just drill the hole so it'll fit your
cart? Ultra already has the NTLM code written and working, and with
Stephan's NTLM library, it can be cross platform.
The file transfter feature is interesting, but I don't know why they didn't
just use a http library. It has all of the features (except for rename)
that they want to add...
You have platform specific code to poll the GUI in win32 now anyway, why not
add the enhancements Ultr@ have made? It's really just bringing win32
support closer to Unix anyway.