Brad Campbell <lists2...@fnarfbargle.com> writes: > On 08/03/16 04:41, Simon Hobson wrote: >> >> VNC is lousy over anything but a very fast link, it's just a remote >> framebuffer - anything painted to the screen is bit copied to the >> client which is bandwidth intensive. > > Whereas tightvnc works quite well over almost anything, and if you are > willing to drop to a small colour pallete
Considering that tightvnc is Windows-only software it seems a bit out of place here. I also seriously doubt this claim (but can't verify that) because it uses the exact same protocol as VNC. I have some experience with similar technology outside of the domain of "Windows freeware", namely, SunRay thin clients. Sun used to recommend a dedicated, 100MBit LAN for these, with 'using a VLAN of a non-dedicated LAN' as 'you can do that if you really want to but be prepared to suffer' option. Regardless of that, the "remote desktop access" model is also very limiting/ annoying when compared with possibilty to enable applications running on different computers to use a single display. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
