James,
Let me start by pointing to a survey that I have on the Bozteck website.
http://www.vncscan.com/vs/asppollx/results.asp
It shows that UltraVNC and TightVNC are installed on far more systems than
RealVNC. They should not be downplayed as just hobby projects with this
much of the user base using their product. I think that all three brands
are outstanding but if I wanted to be sure that my contributions were going
to make it to the most VNC users, I would look in their direction first.
I don't mean to turn this into this big endorsement for TightVNC and
UltraVNC. I have no direct association with any of the VNC projects so I
really have no bias in that regard. All three of these flavors or brands of
VNC have their strengths and weaknesses. That's the beauty of open source
and the options that it creates.
Thank you for the response and please don't take this as anything negative.
I think that the work that you've done with VNC is commendable.
I defend my use of the word "brand" with the dictionary definition:
brand (brbnd) n.
1.
1. A trademark or distinctive name identifying a product or a
manufacturer.
2. A product line so identified: a popular brand of soap.
3. A distinctive category; a particular kind: a brand of comedy
that I do not care for.
2. A mark indicating identity or ownership, burned on the hide of an
animal with a hot iron.
UltraVNC an TightVNC are brands by definition just like Redhat and Fedora
are brand names of the open source project named Linux. They identify their
spin-off of VNC by name. You don't need to make money from something to be
a brand. :)
I understand that you want to create the perception that it's not really VNC
unless it's on your new code base. I do contest, however, that there is a
thriving open source project started by AT&T in 1999 and the project is
named VNC. You where one of the developers that worked on the project back
then. You have the respect of us all for your contributions to the project.
While it was open source, TightVNC and UltraVNC spawned off with compatible
versions with new features because the guys at AT&T where not adding those
features fast enough. You can still take a standard VNC 3.x (even the one
from RealVNC) client and connect to an UltraVNC server and visa-versa.
There is still 100% backwards compatibility.
When AT&T shut the project down and you guys started your own company called
RealVNC, you created a new proprietary code base that was no longer covered
under the GPL. You still have the free one and that is maintained
completely by your new company, but you also have your proprietary closed
source versions that you now sell. I like this because it gives you guys
some funds to make the product even better!
The versions that you currently sell (although branded as REAL VNC) are no
longer VNC compatible with the original VNC project. The UltraVNC and
TightVNC flavors are still 100% compatible with the original VNC code base
while still supporting all of their new features that you mentioned.
I would be more apt to agree with you, James, if TightVNC and UltraVNC where
just some small "hobby projects" that didn't have many users but the reality
is that they have a larger user base than RealVNC does and that deserves
recognition.
I hope that I havent offended you by contesting the point of view.
Steve Bostedor
Bozteck Solutions
http://www.bozteck.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Take control of your network with
VNCScan Enterprise Network Manager
Download: http://www.vncscan.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: James Weatherall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 4:30 PM
To: Steve Bostedor
Cc: vnc-list@realvnc.com
Subject: Maybe Spam: RE: Hitachi-ZYWRLE Encoding Number (was RE:
Introduction of New VNC codec)
Steve,
You've both missed the point and are unfortunately mistaken.
It's not a question of "branding", it's a question of protocol
compatibility. The UltraVNC project does not retain compatibility with
the RFB protocol, which is why it isn't compatible with standard VNC
releases. By contrast, the TightVNC hobby project has been able to
proceed, adding custom features to our core system and using their own
custom protocol elemants while retaining compatiility with the standard.
As far as "branding" is concerned, please bear in mind that VNC is
developed by RealVNC Ltd. TightVNC and UltraVNC are projects based on our
codebase, not "brands" of our software.
I hope this clarifies your misunderstanding of the situation. Your
customers will be happier knowing that your products use fully
VNC-compatible software rather than software that breaks compatibility
with the protocol!
Cheers,
Wez @ RealVNC Ltd
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Steve Bostedor wrote:
> James and everyone else,
>
> I agree that it's not RealVNC 4.x brand compatible but it is VNC
compatible
> in the sense that it is using a VNC protocol and works with any VNC that
is
> not the RealVNC brand 4.x base. That's like saying that it's not
Microsoft
> Windows compatible unless it runs on Windows Vista. :)
>
> UltraVNC and TightVNC are very popular versions of VNC that are actively
> developed and very feature rich thanks to these "hobbiests". They should
> not be ignored simply because they don't use the same code base as the
> RealVNC branded 4.x code base.
>
>
> I don't mean to be the annoying accuracy cop here but this distinction
needs
> to be clear. UltraVNC and RightVNC are RFB compatible VNC servers that
> branch from and improve upon the original 3.x code base while maintaining
> backwards compatibility (unlike the 4.x code base).
>
> Steve Bostedor
> Bozteck Solutions
> http://www.bozteck.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Take control of your network with
> VNCScan Enterprise Network Manager
> Download: http://www.vncscan.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Weatherall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 1:01 PM
> To: 'Steve Bostedor'; vnc-list@realvnc.com
> Subject: RE: Hitachi-ZYWRLE Encoding Number (was RE: Introduction of New
VNC
> codec)
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> As I pointed out in my original response, the problem with them having
> patched against the UltraVNC hobby project is that that's not
> VNC-compatible. Better to product patches against something
VNC-compatible,
> or, better still, the standard VNC codebase, if you want people to be able
> to use it!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wez @ RealVNC Ltd.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steve Bostedor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 02 February 2007 17:29
> > To: 'James Weatherall'; 'Hitachi Systems & Services, Ltd.';
> > vnc-list@realvnc.com
> > Subject: RE: Hitachi-ZYWRLE Encoding Number (was RE:
> > Introduction of New VNC codec)
> >
> > Why not patch against both? The UltraVNC and TightVNC
> > flavors are just as
> > popular as RealVNC. Why limit yourself to just one version of VNC?
> >
> >
> > Steve Bostedor
> > Bozteck Solutions
> > http://www.bozteck.com
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Take control of your network with
> > VNCScan Enterprise Network Manager
> > Download: http://www.vncscan.com
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> > Behalf Of James Weatherall
> > Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 7:31 AM
> > To: 'Hitachi Systems & Services, Ltd.'; vnc-list@realvnc.com
> > Subject: Hitachi-ZYWRLE Encoding Number (was RE: Introduction
> > of New VNC
> > codec)
> >
> > Hi Noriaki-san,
> >
> > I've had encoding number 17 allocated to Hitachi ZYWRLE - using this
> > encoding number will ensure compatibility with standard VNC and
> > VNC-compatible releases. The next release of the VNC codebase will
> > therefore include an encoding "place-holder":
> >
> > const int encoding3rdPartyHitachiZYWRLE = 17;
> >
> > > >I note that you have a version of the UltraVNC hobby project
> > > patched with
> > > >your scheme. Since the UltraVNC project is not
> > > VNC-compatible, you will
> > > >need to switch to a VNC-compatible codebase if you want to
> > > provides VNC
> > > >viewers & servers with your custom encoding.
> > >
> > > You say that I need to make patch for RealVNC server, don't you?
> > > (Sorry to my poor understanding to English...)
> >
> > Not necessarily - which particular VNC version, or VNC-based
> > software, you'd
> > like to patch your encoding against is entirely up to you. I'd would
> > recommend either patching against the standard VNC release, or a
> > VNC-compatible project such as TightVNC.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Dr James Weatherall
> > Chief Engineering Officer - http://www.realvnc.com - RealVNC Ltd
> > _______________________________________________
> > VNC-List mailing list
> > VNC-List@realvnc.com
> > To remove yourself from the list visit:
> > http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
--
Dr. James "Wez" Weatherall
--
Chief Engineering Officer
RealVNC Ltd. - The home of VNC - http://www.realvnc.com
_______________________________________________
VNC-List mailing list
VNC-List@realvnc.com
To remove yourself from the list visit:
http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
