On 2/3/07, Kelly F. Hickel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I might be wrong, but that's the way I read it....
I think the issue is bigger than that. You see, James addresses these as "side"/"minor"/"hobby" projects, while as said: They ARE 100% compatible with the original VNC code base and largely used. > On Behalf Of Steve Bostedor > > Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 4:12 PM > > > > 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. Thank you for standing up and saying that. > > > I hope that I havent offended you by contesting the point of view. Same here. I'm an implementer and a user of this great work for years. I have no "hidden agenda". Also, I have great respect for ALL the people contributing the VNC of all versions and flavors. Ran -- Ran Sasson Inside Outsourcing I.O. ltd -------- _______________________________________________ VNC-List mailing list VNC-List@realvnc.com To remove yourself from the list visit: http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
