[conspire] VNC through a secure channel
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
> 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