VNC compilation against Xorg 1.4

Peter ├ůstrand astrand "at"
Mon Feb 4 11:33:01 2008

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Adam Tkac wrote:

> > > Xvnc source is designed to work with pretty old monolitic XFree
> > > source. I've forked vnc free edition about 2 months ago as project
> > > 'baracuda'. You will see and
> > > mercurial repository Now
> >
> > Do you really think that the world needs *yet* another VNC fork?
> >
> I don't think world needs another vnc. But world needs server which is
> based on Xorg source and I don't know about any. Current situation is
> that all bigger vendors uses RealVNC source with many patches and Xorg
> codebase. I want unify it so I've forked it. Also RealVNC doesn't care
> about free edition bugs, no update since 4.1.2 which is pretty old.
> If I missed such project please point me.

The TightVNC development branch, also known as the 1.5.X series, is trying
to fill this need. It was adopted to Xorg before the modularization,
though, so it needs to be updated to current versions. The 1.5.X series is
what we are shipping in ThinLinc and it has worked very good so far. We
have been planning to migrate to modular Xorg, but haven't been able to
find time to do so yet.

Developers comes and goes, but code stays. I think it's important to
cooperate to gain enough momentum for a project to keep going, even if a
single developers leaves the community. There are far too many VNC
projects already: Real, TightVNC, TurboVNC, xf4vnc, x11vnc and many
others. And I have only mentioned projects with servers; there are even
more vncviewer projects. This hurts the VNC community. For example, those
wanting to have server-accelerated OpenGL can just TurboVNC, but then have
to endure the pain of a Xfree86 3.3 implementation.

Since you have a mail, may I presume that the plan is to ship
Baracuda in future Fedora and/or RHEL distributions? I can understand why
you want to move away from the current RealVNC + tons of patches approach.
Some while ago I suggested to the Fedora VNC maintainer that they should
ship TightVNC 1.5.X, but that didn't happen (but I understand why it

So, how about joining forces? To me, the most straight forward approach
would be for you to work on the TightVNC 1.5.X tree, instead of a fork.
What do you and Constantin think of this?

Best regards,
Peter Cstrand		ThinLinc Chief Developer
Cendio AB
Wallenbergs gata 4
583 30 LinkC6ping	Phone: +46-13-21 46 00