[conspire] VNC through a secure channel

Daniel Gimpelevich daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us
Mon Aug 25 14:14:13 PDT 2008

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:57:24 -0400, Ruben Safir wrote:

> No doubt, but I desagree that this should be done.  I want to right a
> real application, not an AJAX Javascript ram everything through apache
> with fiddlestix thing.
> First, this is only the first phase of this application which I hope
> will fund more aspects to it.
> Secondly, all those fiddlestix aren't GNU Complient, or built on
> universal standards.  The google stuff is actually multiple applications
> written in parallel for multiple clients, and frankly I HATE THE

I couldn't agree more with the above assessment, but then, I'm always 
biased against abuses of Moore's Law.

> In healthcare the applications have been running out of the browser for
> years, and I hate them all.
> X is perfectly capable of projecting itself across the net, with and
> without VNC, the issue is only bandwidth and security.  And that is what
> I'm looking for expertise in.

Part of the point of VNC is to eliminate the requirement of X, so that 
non-X GUI's can interoperate, at the expense of major bandwidth.

> They don't have to install VNC.  X11 runs through the browser through a
> Java Applet.  Eventually you hope for people to upgrade and then you can
> sell appliances.

If you are even considering X11 over Java using something like WeirdX, 
know that it is *glacially* slow. Also, if you see fit to remove the 
browser from the equation, removing Java as well should be a no-brainer.

> Overall, this is software as a service like google docs, but without the
> browser based restrictions.

It can be either software-as-a-service like the Google Apps, or software 
that runs locally, but whatever you do, don't make it both at the same 
time, because that is quite guaranteed to be the worst of both worlds.

More information about the conspire mailing list