Re: VNC compilation against Xorg 1.4

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: VNC compilation against Xorg 1.4

astrand (Bugzilla)
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Adam Tkac wrote:

> > > Xvnc source is designed to work with pretty old monolitic XFree
> > > source. I've forked vnc free edition about 2 months ago as project
> > > 'baracuda'. You will see https://fedorahosted.org/baracuda/ and
> > > mercurial repository http://hg.fedorahosted.org/hg/baracuda. Now
> >
> > Do you really think that the world needs *yet* another VNC fork?
> >
>
> I don't think world needs another vnc. But world needs server which is
> based on Xorg source and I don't know about any. Current situation is
> that all bigger vendors uses RealVNC source with many patches and Xorg
> codebase. I want unify it so I've forked it. Also RealVNC doesn't care
> about free edition bugs, no update since 4.1.2 which is pretty old.
> If I missed such project please point me.
The TightVNC development branch, also known as the 1.5.X series, is trying
to fill this need. It was adopted to Xorg before the modularization,
though, so it needs to be updated to current versions. The 1.5.X series is
what we are shipping in ThinLinc and it has worked very good so far. We
have been planning to migrate to modular Xorg, but haven't been able to
find time to do so yet.

Developers comes and goes, but code stays. I think it's important to
cooperate to gain enough momentum for a project to keep going, even if a
single developers leaves the community. There are far too many VNC
projects already: Real, TightVNC, TurboVNC, xf4vnc, x11vnc and many
others. And I have only mentioned projects with servers; there are even
more vncviewer projects. This hurts the VNC community. For example, those
wanting to have server-accelerated OpenGL can just TurboVNC, but then have
to endure the pain of a Xfree86 3.3 implementation.

Since you have a @redhat.com mail, may I presume that the plan is to ship
Baracuda in future Fedora and/or RHEL distributions? I can understand why
you want to move away from the current RealVNC + tons of patches approach.
Some while ago I suggested to the Fedora VNC maintainer that they should
ship TightVNC 1.5.X, but that didn't happen (but I understand why it
didn't).

So, how about joining forces? To me, the most straight forward approach
would be for you to work on the TightVNC 1.5.X tree, instead of a fork.
What do you and Constantin think of this?


Best regards,
---
Peter Åstrand ThinLinc Chief Developer
Cendio AB http://www.cendio.se
Wallenbergs gata 4
583 30 Linköping Phone: +46-13-21 46 00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
VNC-Tight-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vnc-tight-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: VNC compilation against Xorg 1.4

Adam Tkac
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 12:32:06PM +0100, Peter Åstrand wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Adam Tkac wrote:
>
> > > > Xvnc source is designed to work with pretty old monolitic XFree
> > > > source. I've forked vnc free edition about 2 months ago as project
> > > > 'baracuda'. You will see https://fedorahosted.org/baracuda/ and
> > > > mercurial repository http://hg.fedorahosted.org/hg/baracuda. Now
> > >
> > > Do you really think that the world needs *yet* another VNC fork?
> > >
> >
> > I don't think world needs another vnc. But world needs server which is
> > based on Xorg source and I don't know about any. Current situation is
> > that all bigger vendors uses RealVNC source with many patches and Xorg
> > codebase. I want unify it so I've forked it. Also RealVNC doesn't care
> > about free edition bugs, no update since 4.1.2 which is pretty old.
> > If I missed such project please point me.
>
> The TightVNC development branch, also known as the 1.5.X series, is trying
> to fill this need. It was adopted to Xorg before the modularization,
> though, so it needs to be updated to current versions. The 1.5.X series is
> what we are shipping in ThinLinc and it has worked very good so far. We
> have been planning to migrate to modular Xorg, but haven't been able to
> find time to do so yet.

I'm ready to help TightVNC developers with moving to new Xorg
codebase. I discussed this problem with Constantin (should be lead
developer on TightVNC project) but he told me that they porting
TightVNC to vnc 4.1.2 codebase and this doesn't look like good way to
me. TightVNC server needs hard development (not only server, also
other parts). And I don't think they will accept huge patches. This
initiative should come from TightVNC developers, not from me (I'm
talking about trunk TightVNC)

>
> Developers comes and goes, but code stays. I think it's important to
> cooperate to gain enough momentum for a project to keep going, even if a
> single developers leaves the community. There are far too many VNC
> projects already: Real, TightVNC, TurboVNC, xf4vnc, x11vnc and many
> others. And I have only mentioned projects with servers; there are even
> more vncviewer projects. This hurts the VNC community. For example, those
> wanting to have server-accelerated OpenGL can just TurboVNC, but then have
> to endure the pain of a Xfree86 3.3 implementation.

You're right. Current situation is disasterous. But many of projects
stuck with XFree86 servers so this is not acceptable for me (only
xf4vnc is ported to Xorg codebase).

>
> Since you have a @redhat.com mail, may I presume that the plan is to ship
> Baracuda in future Fedora and/or RHEL distributions? I can understand why
> you want to move away from the current RealVNC + tons of patches approach.
> Some while ago I suggested to the Fedora VNC maintainer that they should
> ship TightVNC 1.5.X, but that didn't happen (but I understand why it
> didn't).

Where is 1.5 avaliable?

>
> So, how about joining forces? To me, the most straight forward approach
> would be for you to work on the TightVNC 1.5.X tree, instead of a fork.
> What do you and Constantin think of this?

Not sure what Constantin thinks. I don't think they is going to give
me access to svn repository and such development is quite hard with
centralised VCS for me.

>
>
> Best regards,
> ---
> Peter Åstrand ThinLinc Chief Developer
> Cendio AB http://www.cendio.se
> Wallenbergs gata 4
> 583 30 Linköping Phone: +46-13-21 46 00

Adam

--
Adam Tkac, Red Hat, Inc.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
VNC-Tight-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vnc-tight-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: VNC compilation against Xorg 1.4

astrand (Bugzilla)
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Adam Tkac wrote:

> > The TightVNC development branch, also known as the 1.5.X series, is trying
> > to fill this need. It was adopted to Xorg before the modularization,
> > though, so it needs to be updated to current versions. The 1.5.X series is
> > what we are shipping in ThinLinc and it has worked very good so far. We
> > have been planning to migrate to modular Xorg, but haven't been able to
> > find time to do so yet.
>
> I'm ready to help TightVNC developers with moving to new Xorg
> codebase. I discussed this problem with Constantin (should be lead
> developer on TightVNC project) but he told me that they porting
> TightVNC to vnc 4.1.2 codebase and this doesn't look like good way to
> me.
I'm not sure I understand you; why is it wrong with porting to the 4.1.2
codebase? It's the latest available free Real version, right?


> TightVNC server needs hard development (not only server, also
> other parts). And I don't think they will accept huge patches.

Smaller patches are always better, but as long as the patches are fairly
"atomic", at least I'm not fundamentally opposed to them.


> This initiative should come from TightVNC developers, not from me (I'm
> talking about trunk TightVNC)

Perhaps I should clarify my role here. My main objective is to have a
modern up-to-date VNC implementation for the ThinLinc product. This
includes Xvnc and clients for a wide range of platforms. Also, if
possible, we would like to work with the community for the greater good.

Historically, the TightVNC project has been the "best" project for us. It
provided a bandwidth efficient implementation but perhaps even more
importantly an Open Source project. The fokus of the TightVNC project, I
would say, have been a little bit more towards the Windows WinVNC side
rather than Xvnc. One indication of this is that the latest stable
TightVNC release *still* contains a Xvnc based on XFree86 3.3.

So, the work on migrating Xvnc to Xorg, in the 1.5.X series, has mainly
been done by myself. Due to this work, I'm also listed as a TightVNC
developer (see http://www.tightvnc.com/people.html). Meaning that an
initiative has actually arrived from a TightVNC developer - me :-) That
said, Constantin is the lead developer and has the final word.

Even if I care a lot about the TightVNC project, I'm also open to work
with other projects.


> > Developers comes and goes, but code stays. I think it's important to
> > cooperate to gain enough momentum for a project to keep going, even if a
> > single developers leaves the community. There are far too many VNC
> > projects already: Real, TightVNC, TurboVNC, xf4vnc, x11vnc and many
> > others. And I have only mentioned projects with servers; there are even
> > more vncviewer projects. This hurts the VNC community. For example, those
> > wanting to have server-accelerated OpenGL can just TurboVNC, but then have
> > to endure the pain of a Xfree86 3.3 implementation.
>
> You're right. Current situation is disasterous. But many of projects
> stuck with XFree86 servers so this is not acceptable for me (only
> xf4vnc is ported to Xorg codebase).
Plus TightVNC 1.5.X.


> > Since you have a @redhat.com mail, may I presume that the plan is to ship
> > Baracuda in future Fedora and/or RHEL distributions? I can understand why
> > you want to move away from the current RealVNC + tons of patches approach.
> > Some while ago I suggested to the Fedora VNC maintainer that they should
> > ship TightVNC 1.5.X, but that didn't happen (but I understand why it
> > didn't).
>
> Where is 1.5 avaliable?

http://vnc-tight.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/vnc-tight/trunk/


> > So, how about joining forces? To me, the most straight forward approach
> > would be for you to work on the TightVNC 1.5.X tree, instead of a fork.
> > What do you and Constantin think of this?
>
> Not sure what Constantin thinks. I don't think they is going to give
> me access to svn repository and such development is quite hard with
> centralised VCS for me.

Let's wait for his input.

On a related topic: I can see on https://fedorahosted.org/baracuda/ that
you plan to support TightVNC extensions. Let's assume for a moment that
Constantin does not give you write access. Then, how will Baracuda differs
from the existing TightVNC project? Will you promote the project as a
"TightVNC TNG" and in essence "compete" with the existing TightVNC
project. Or, are you planning to give Baracuda a "different taste" and
focus on different areas than TightVNC?


Best regards,
---
Peter Åstrand ThinLinc Chief Developer
Cendio AB http://www.cendio.se
Wallenbergs gata 4
583 30 Linköping Phone: +46-13-21 46 00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
VNC-Tight-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vnc-tight-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: VNC compilation against Xorg 1.4

Adam Tkac
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 05:30:25PM +0100, Peter Åstrand wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand you; why is it wrong with porting to the 4.1.2
> codebase? It's the latest available free Real version, right?
>

I think Real library is too complicated and I don't think it is well
written. But this might be only my personal grudge :)

>
> Let's wait for his input.

Looks like Constantin is open for that.

>
> On a related topic: I can see on https://fedorahosted.org/baracuda/ that
> you plan to support TightVNC extensions. Let's assume for a moment that
> Constantin does not give you write access. Then, how will Baracuda differs
> from the existing TightVNC project? Will you promote the project as a
> "TightVNC TNG" and in essence "compete" with the existing TightVNC
> project. Or, are you planning to give Baracuda a "different taste" and
> focus on different areas than TightVNC?
>

Important thing is try to analyze RFB 4.0 protocol. I think it is
possible, at least RSA authentication and session encryption, it will be
very usefull.

Adam

--
Adam Tkac, Red Hat, Inc.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
VNC-Tight-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vnc-tight-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: VNC compilation against Xorg 1.4

astrand (Bugzilla)
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Adam Tkac wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 05:30:25PM +0100, Peter Åstrand wrote:
> > I'm not sure I understand you; why is it wrong with porting to the 4.1.2
> > codebase? It's the latest available free Real version, right?
>
> I think Real library is too complicated and I don't think it is well
> written. But this might be only my personal grudge :)

Yes, it's somewhat difficult to work with. It's also a little bit too much
C++ for my taste. But, the fact that there's a common library that can be
used both for clients and servers across different platforms is very good.


Best regards,
---
Peter Åstrand ThinLinc Chief Developer
Cendio AB http://www.cendio.se
Wallenbergs gata 4
583 30 Linköping Phone: +46-13-21 46 00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
VNC-Tight-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vnc-tight-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: VNC compilation against Xorg 1.4

Adam Tkac
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 06:58:48PM +0100, Peter Åstrand wrote:

> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Adam Tkac wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 05:30:25PM +0100, Peter Åstrand wrote:
> > > I'm not sure I understand you; why is it wrong with porting to the 4.1.2
> > > codebase? It's the latest available free Real version, right?
> >
> > I think Real library is too complicated and I don't think it is well
> > written. But this might be only my personal grudge :)
>
> Yes, it's somewhat difficult to work with. It's also a little bit too much
> C++ for my taste. But, the fact that there's a common library that can be
> used both for clients and servers across different platforms is very good.
>

Yes, it's stable and it's working and it's reference RFB 3.8 implementation.
When we don't have other work we will do some cleanups.

Adam

--
Adam Tkac, Red Hat, Inc.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
VNC-Tight-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vnc-tight-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: VNC compilation against Xorg 1.4

ttw+vnc
In reply to this post by Adam Tkac
On 05.02-18:53, Adam Tkac wrote:
[ ... ]
> Important thing is try to analyze RFB 4.0 protocol. I think it is
> possible, at least RSA authentication and session encryption, it will be
> very usefull.

agree with you here and as regards the realvnc codebase.  looking at
the protocol(s) and creating better c and java libraries are on my
todo.  however, i don't see "rsa authentication" or "session encryption"
as particularly useful if we assume a complete and integrated TLS/SSL
as a more useful target but i'll comment more when i've had a chance
to tackle some of the above.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
VNC-Tight-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vnc-tight-devel