"Bryan A. Pendleton" wrote:
>
> The whole discussion of the FTP server leads back to another thought I'd
> had for a while, which came up during the discussion of including
> encryption directly in the protocol that I started a few months ago (and
> which I'll be bringing back up towards the end of the school term, when I
> have programming time to throw at it).
>
> The problem is, there are two ways to see VNC:
> 1) Stateless display access
> 2) Custom user session
>
[snip]
> That's not the only issue underlying this discussion, but it's a big one.
> And, maybe it's time for those of us willing to develop VNC beyond the work
> of AT&T to talk about which model to stick with. Clearly, with #2, file
> transfer, security, etc., if desired, should be included in the server.
> Plugins might be a nice way to go. With #1, though, all of that extra
> functionality is fluff, and doesn't belong in anything but a co-packaging
> arrangement.
You make a good point, but unfortunately I don't think you get to
choose which model to support. You have to support both to some degree,
because Windows is fundamentally a single-user OS and Unix is
fundamentally
a multi-user OS.
And furthermore, the tools you need to implement your own file transfer/
tunnelling/whatever solution are far more likely to be present on
Unix boxen (at least in my experience), which seems to rather invert
the sense of your argument.
-- Joe Knapka
"It was just a maddened crocodile hidden in a flower bed. It could
have happened to anyone." -- Pratchett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
