>From: "Boon Yeo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Fri Dec 28 2001 5:10pm >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subj: Re: Is VNC still being worked on? > >"David Brodbeck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Any particular reason you can't just use TightVNC? I've been using it for >> quite a while now and it seems to be every bit as stable as the "official" >> AT&T version. > >I beg to differ. For some reasons, TightVNC viewer >kept crashing on my Redhat 7.1 box. I had to "regress" >to the "official" AT&T version. Perhaps the Win98 >server screen size of 1280x1024 pixels is too large >for the RH 7.1 viewer sceen size 1024x768 pixels. >Now I am running TightVNC server on the Win98 >and AT&T VNC viewer on the RH 7.1. Seems to >be working fine. >
How does that work? If you run a TightVNC server that uses extra compression over the protocol, how can a non-TightVNC viewer understand it? I thought you had to use TightVNC on both sides of the com-link. Freddy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the line: 'unsubscribe vnc-list' in the message BODY See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------
