Andrew van der Stock wrote: > IETF Great idea - I would support this. But: > Anyway, forking code bases is not necessarily bad. Different products for > different needs works okay (ie Palm code base has different aims to a > Windows code base (simple features, small and very efficient code size, > extreme compression needs vs feature rich, object size doesn't really matter > , speed of display is important). As long as everyone moves to the 5.0 > protocol quickly my security concerns will be assuaged. And Brian Blevins said: > As far as AT&T integrating the Tight encoding, I doubt that > will happen. They seem to have come to the conclusion that > hextile achieves a sort of optimum for CPU usage versus > level of compression. Of course, a brief comment from > someone at AT&T would be much preferrable to my musings. Again, I ask: why aren't all these options and platforms compile- time options? Is it because of win* people just not having any concept/experience of this? How about modularizing encoding and the like, then? Forking isn't always bad, but forking into one project per binary is madness! -- Illtud Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Uwch Ddadansoddwr Systemau Senior Systems Analyst Llyfrgell Genedlaethol Cymru National Library of Wales Yn siarad drosof fy hun, nid LlGC - Speaking personally, not for NLW --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
