| 1 |
Zebedee was (I think) originally designed to offer an encrypted port |
| 2 |
based tunnel for vnc amongst other apps. Ive found it extreemly useful |
| 3 |
over the years, and far more stable/flexible/featureful than the ssh |
| 4 |
alternative, especially over poor and dialup connections. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
zebedee + vnc is classic unix - each doing its own task ... well |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
BillK |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
On Sat, 2009-04-11 at 12:11 +0100, Stroller wrote: |
| 12 |
> On 11 Apr 2009, at 10:13, Konstantinos Agouros wrote: |
| 13 |
> > ... the MAC-Screenshare VNC Client gave a warning about 'not so |
| 14 |
> > good authentication' so it seems apple might after all have a |
| 15 |
> > proprietary |
| 16 |
> > extension in there. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> It's worth mentioning that the original GPL, AT&T sponsored VNC |
| 19 |
> offered no encryption (except perhaps as https in the browser-based |
| 20 |
> Java version?). The last I heard was that work had ceased upon it, |
| 21 |
> following the termination of AT&T sponsorship, but that some of the |
| 22 |
> authors had started their own company selling VNC-based solutions. |
| 23 |
> Their new products are used by at least one company that sells KVM-IP |
| 24 |
> switches, but I believe they are all closed & proprietary. I think |
| 25 |
> more than one OSS / 3rd-party VNC project have, as a consequence, |
| 26 |
> added encryption, but I don't believe that any of them are |
| 27 |
> compatible. :( |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> It really is a shame, IMO. VNC brought us cross-platform |
| 30 |
> screensharing, but without encryption one is reluctant to use it |
| 31 |
> outside the LAN. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Stroller. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
William Kenworthy <billk@×××××××××.au> |
| 37 |
Home in Perth! |
Archives