On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 07:31:02AM -0400, Carl Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 09:44:47PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote: > > xtightvncviewer suggests tightvncserver, and vnc-java suggests > > vncserver. > > But isn't that a mistake? Why would it make sense to install multiple VNC > servers? Shouldn't there be a pseudo-package (I think that's the right > term) that is supplied by any of the VNC servers?
Looks like a mistake to me. I'd think suggesting vnc-server, or maybe (say) "tightvncserver | vnc-server", would be just fine. OTOH, tightvnc has protocol extensions and works better with its own server, so that suggestion isn't entirely silly. Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
