On 2011/06/28 07:31, Ian McWilliam wrote: > On 28/06/2011 5:28 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote: > >On 2011-06-27, Bernd Schoeller<be...@fams.de> wrote: > >>Dear Stuart, > >> > >>Thanks for the answer. I had tried to avoid x11vnc, as its setup looks > >>somewhat more complicated for a headless machine - and it did not seem > >>to be the right solution. > >> > >>But I will give it a shot. > >Yes, unfortunately it is more complicated, but it's the only really-working > >option in the ports tree. TigerVNC would be more convenient but it needs > >to be combined with the Xorg source tree to get it building. > > > > TightVNC has been broken on AMD64 for oh so long....insert release > number here, probably busted on all 64bit architectures.
Broken on big-endian too. > Last time I > tried it, it did run on i386, but that was last time I tested it, > according to CVS history approx 20 months ago. It runs on i386, but from what I remember it's not very useful, doesn't have modern font handling etc.
