:: 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
:: implementation.
Not at all. Having three ports was motivated by the facts that
1. there are three completely different protocols; nobody
is surprised to find a single process (eg, inetd) listening
at different ports for different protocols.
3. the initialization sequences of http, X and rfb protocols
are completely mutually incompatible, and so a listener
at one port would not reliably know which protocol to speak, and
it would be difficult to justify forcing them to be compatible.
It's not at all fair or reasonable to call this a "shortcut".
: Should be not that hard to arange with some port mapping application:
: First listen on the port. If a webbrowser is found, provide the
: webpage as on 5800, with the propper port defined. If a vcnviewer
: found, remap the port to the vncserver port and off you go.
I fail to see any motivation for doing so. The criteria for "if a
webbrowser is found" could not be anything more than a rule of thumb,
prone to problems. If it's such a big issue, then put up a web page
that starts the java viewer pointed at the desired port; that web page
could be hosted from anywhere at all, and accessed through port 80
as is natural.
Wayne Throop [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
