Hi Steve, I'm afraid you are mistaken on a number of counts.
When the AT&T Labs shut down, we started RealVNC and continued development of the VNC 3.x system, and the TightVNC and UltraVNC projects are based on that codebase. I don't think anyone would dispute the hard work that's gone into both projects. We continued to develop and release the new VNC 4.x system, which we made available under the terms of the GPL - it was announced on the mailing lists but perhaps you missed it somehow. The latest versions of the VNC system (series 4) retain full compatibility with the earlier VNC 3.x system, as does the TightVNC project. The UltraVNC project, however, uses a custom protocol that is based on the old RFB 3.3 specification, but which breaks the protocol version numbering scheme, making it incompatible with the RFB protocol, and so with VNC. I hope this clears things up for you, but if you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me off-list and I'll be happy to discuss them with you. Cheers, Wez @ RealVNC Ltd. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Bostedor > Sent: 02 February 2007 22:12 > To: 'James Weatherall' > Cc: vnc-list@realvnc.com > Subject: RE: Maybe Spam: RE: Hitachi-ZYWRLE Encoding Number > (was RE: Introduction of New VNC codec) > > 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 _______________________________________________ VNC-List mailing list VNC-List@realvnc.com To remove yourself from the list visit: http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
