vnc good, but usability problems hampering adoption
dank "at" kegel.com
Sun Aug 21 19:37:00 2005
Franklin & Mary Beth Bowen wrote:
> I agree. I am still learning how best to use VNC and a couple of things
> have helped me:
> 1) If you are connecting to other less techy people, have them install
> RealVNC w/o changing any options and then have them do a reverse
> connection to you and then you can set the options for them. Yes, this
> still can be challenging for some users but it does eliminate access to
> their router as a problem.
Reverse connection does seem to be part of the answer,
but we need to make it a bit easier - we want something
that is *not* challenging for *any* user! (I have friends
and relatives who are so unable to deal with computers,
you wouldn't believe it. The only configuration that is
right for them is zero configuration, I'm afraid.)
> 2) EchoVNC. It sounds like this might do what you want. The real
> downside to this, IMHO, is that groups need to be set up by an
> administrator ahead of time.
Plus the server is not open source
I want to stay 100% open source.
The UltraVNC developers have been doing some interesting things
along these lines. They have a relay server and a NAT helper,
both of which might be quite useful. They also have a way to
generate special versions of the server (Ultravnc SC) that are preconfigured,
don't need installation, and simply connect direct to a
predefined client address! That would really make life
easy: when a customer has a problem, you send them a
program and have them run it, and bingo! you have control
of their computer. (Come to think of it, that sounds like
what hostile worm spammers do, too.) But the general
lack of professionalism of the UltraVNC crew makes me
hesitate about using any of their code.
Anyway, I'll try playing with reverse connections and
see how it goes.
Trying to get a job as a c++ developer? See http://kegel.com/academy/getting-hired.html