Steve,
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Morris, Steve wrote:
> Imagine if someone were to make a windows package which included VNC, a SSH
> client and an FTP client, along with a common configuration procedure. I
> think this would be quite popular and adequately address Steve Bostedor's
> and many other posters issues.
Your point is taken. However, what we in the other camp are saying is
that these pieces shouldn't be integrated into the product to making it
bulky and inflexible. VNC is something similar to Sun's Ray, but done in
software rather than hardware and without some of the limitations. It is
a roaming desktop. The heavy duty operations are done on the back end.
Some of us would like it to become PCAnywhere or Timbuktu, which follow a
similar but different paradigm. They are remote administration
tools. VNC can serve that purpose, but only with add-ons like ssh or
ftp.
On a technical note, see that ssh and ftp have stateful clients whereas
VNC is not. Statefulness is a limiting factor for VNC since stateful
sessions cannot roam without having the same functionality on all viewers
and if ftp is added they cannot roam at all during transfers.
> This is the key conflict. Many end users (especially non UXIX users) need a
> more inclusive package than a raw VNC and there is no one willing to provide
> the packaging/integration service that most end users are not sophisticated
> enough to handle themselves. This leads end users to request the additional
> features as enhancements to VNC, thus this perennially reoccurring thread.
Which suggests at least two non-exclusive points:
1. From the macroeconomic point of view, there is little demand for such a
package and we're only hearing the vocal few;
2. The few "end users (especially non UNIX users)" who are in the know how
to set up such an environemnt are not sharing their knowledge effectively
or at all with the "many end users (especially non UNIX users) who need a
more inclusive package that a raw VNC."
I believe both of these points are true. The market for PCAnywhere,
Timbuktu, or even Microsoft Terminal Server is very limited, which
illustrates point #1. And to illustrate #2 I'll use your own statement,
"there is no one willing to provide the packaging/integration service."
The solutions seems obvious, and you suggested it. Someone "(especially a
non UNIX user)" who's in the know should package VNC, FTP and/or SSH for
the "most end users [that] are not sophisticated enough to handle [it]
themselves."
Tom
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steve Bostedor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> ... parts clipped ...
> > Why run twenty
> > programs to accomplish something that you should be able to
> > do with one?
> > Isn't the point of technology to make things easier and more
> > efficient?
>
> This is a clash of cultures issue. It is the UNIX way to make independent
> tools that can be mixed and matched to provide a broader range of user
> selectable functionality. "One package does everything" is the Microsoft way
> towards monopoly control and to stifle innovation. Consider the lowly
> grammar checker. Microsoft bought one 10 years ago and embedded it in Word.
> As a result the grammar checker is just as limited as it was 10 years ago.
> Microsoft has no financial incentive to enhance it and no one else can make
> money competing with something Microsoft gives you for free. Using the
> Linux example imagine if we tried to integrate the gcc compiler directly
> into the Linux Kernal or the web browser directly into X11.
>
> Breaking out development on clean functional lines leads to faster
> functional growth. In this the VNC team is totally correct. However
> integration is a important and valuable function. Who will be the integrator
> for remote Windows access with VNC at the center if the att team will not do
> it? I think the answer is no one, which means that VNC will be forever at a
> disadvantage competing against the commercial packages which handle the
> integration. VNC will remain a tool for the sophisticated user.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, send a message with the line: unsubscribe vnc-list
> to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send a message with the line: unsubscribe vnc-list
to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
