That does make symbolic sense.
- Original Message -
From: "Wayne Throop" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, 2002-03-21 12:45
Subject: RE: The Next Generation display numbers
: :: That 1-port-per display i
:: That 1-port-per display issue is one of the things that struck me as
:: particularly inelegant when I first encountered VNC; without knowing
:: anything about the technical details behind it, I am guessing that it
:: was motivated by some shortcut taken to simplify the original
:: implementatio
hael Ossmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, 2002-03-20 11:51
> Subject: Re: The Next Generation display numbers
>
>
> : On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 10:38:40AM -0500, Grant McDorman wrote:
> : >
> : > The problem is that VN
> -Original Message-
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 10:38:40AM -0500, Grant McDorman wrote:
> >
> > The problem is that VNC, on *nix systems, will always use a display
> > number for access by applications. If one drops the display
> number for
> > the VNC client connections, then we'll have *
nal" then.
> >
> > Let's make it:
> > "I would dearly love to see a method of dealing with
> display and port
> > numbers which does not confuse the bejeezus out of new users."
> >
> > Follow-ups | /dev/null
> >
> &g
: Grant McDorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: The problem is that VNC, on *nix systems, will always use a display
: number for access by applications. If one drops the display number
: for the VNC client connections, then we'll have *two* unrelated IDs
: for the VNC server - the display number, and the
ROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alex K.
> Angelopoulos
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 12:59 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: The Next Generation display numbers
>
>
> That 1-port-per display issue is one of the things that struck me as
>
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 01:59:07PM -0500, Alex K. Angelopoulos wrote:
> Going one step further, it might be nice if the next
> generation could also respond to HTTP queries on the same port by
> attempting to serve an applet - assuming that would not introduce
> excessive complexity or security i
would seem to me to be able to
communicate sufficient information for the server to decide what to do.
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Ossmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, 2002-03-20 11:51
Subject: Re: The Next Generation display numb
If Xvnc uses one port for RFB then with the current implemenation it wont be
possible to open two display from Xvnc.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Ossmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 8:52 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Next Generation display
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 10:38:40AM -0500, Grant McDorman wrote:
>
> The problem is that VNC, on *nix systems, will always use a display
> number for access by applications. If one drops the display number for
> the VNC client connections, then we'll have *two* unrelated IDs for
> the VNC server -
ezus out of new users."
>
> Follow-ups | /dev/null
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Scott "The Axe" O'Bryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, 2002-03-19 19:28
> Subject: RE: The Next Generation displ
Wow, I was REALLY cranky before my first cup of coffee this morning... :(
- Original Message -
From: "Alex K. Angelopoulos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, 2002-03-20 07:10
Subject: Re: The Next Generation display numbers
: O
Fair enough.. I'd like to see that too.. :)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Alex K.
Angelopoulos
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 5:10 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Next Generation display numbers
OK, let's dro
quot;The Axe" O'Bryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, 2002-03-19 19:28
Subject: RE: The Next Generation display numbers
: I think it was taken off of the Unix display model, which some would
: argue IS the traditional way of exportin
e"
O'Bryan
Sent: Wednesday, 20 March 2002 11:29 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: The Next Generation display numbers
I think it was taken off of the Unix display model, which some would
argue IS the traditional way of exporting a display.
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 02:51:22PM -0500, Alex K. Angelopoulos wrote:
> Sure; my point is the method used for tying ports and displays
> together. It makes use of custom lower-numbered ports significantly
> more difficult.
What would be really nice would be a system by which display numbers
don'
Sure; my point is the method used for tying ports and displays together. It
makes use of custom lower-numbered ports significantly more difficult.
- Original Message -
From: "Steve Palocz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, 2002-03-19 13:12
I wish people would understand that the display number is just part of the
port number.
That in the terminal services world, or in Unix, it is important.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alex K.
Angelopoulos
Sent: Tuesday, March 19,
19 matches
Mail list logo
