On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 4:22 PM Jiri Konecny <jkone...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 11. 06. 24 11:53, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 10:41 AM Jiri Konecny <jkone...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 04. 06. 24 14:27, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 8:23 AM Jiri Konecny <jkone...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 03. 06. 24 21:57, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > Aoife Moloney <amolo...@redhat.com> writes: > > === VNC switch to RDP for remote GUI installations === > > I'm curious how my usual install workflow will be affected by this > change. I use the kickstart "vnc --connect" option extensively in my > workflow; I may have a bunch of installs running in parallel, and they > just connect and display when they are ready. I use vinagre as the vnc > client. > > It's not a huge thing; I could come up with another workflow but that's > the one I've used since before Fedora existed. The installs are fully > automated and the display connection is only used so that I can see the > progress and potentially interact with a machine if it encounters a > problem. I guess in the worst case I could just do the install blind > and ssh in if something takes too long. > > Hi, the only change should be that you will change "vnc --connect" with > the new API we will provide and also use RDP as your client instead of VNC. > > Given that gnome-remote-desktop supports both VNC and RDP, can't VNC > support still be wired up? > > Hi, it is theoretically possible but we are not planning to do that > until there will be a reason for that. AFAIK it's not that simple change > to do that. > > I think the reason is pretty obvious: there are many more high quality > VNC clients than there are RDP ones. And even ignoring that, the > existing Anaconda workflows for remote GUI expect VNC. There is no > technical limitation preventing us from having VNC support through > grd. In fact, one of the original reasons I wrote the Weston backend > for Anaconda was so that I could have VNC for Linux and web clients, > because the RDP clients are not very good in my experience. > > In any case, I would see this more like a future improvement if we agree to > go this way. I would like to simplify things for now, it's already a big > change. >
As long as the mechanism to wire things up for inst.vnc to work isn't deleted, then I think that's fine. It can be added after-the-fact and maybe even still land for F41. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
