Make sense to me.
Halton.
On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 13:35 -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> We've been using RealVNC for the vncviewer & Xvnc implementation
> in OpenSolaris, but the upstream is moribund, with only one trivial
> security fix in years, since the RealVNC developers seem to be
> concentrating on their commercial fork. We'd actually adopted the
> Fedora RPM as our upstream, since they'd already done the hard parts,
> like porting it to build on Xorg modular sources and adding IPv6 support
> and various other useful updates.
>
> They've now grown tired of maintaining it all by themselves, and have
> joined with some former TightVNC developers and the VirtualGL project
> to start a new TigerVNC fork:
>
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.tight-vnc.general/8610/
> http://tigervnc.sourceforge.net/
>
> While I've done the work to port ours forward to build against Xorg 1.6,
> so we're not held back by it, I am seriously considering moving to
> TigerVNC once they've had a stable release, as it seems like it can
> replace both the RealVNC shipped in X, and the TurboVNC packages that
> the Shared/Scalable Visualization project shipped in /opt/SUNWtvnc
> to support VirtualGL.
>
> Is there any reason this would be a bad idea?
>
