Re: Proposed: vino
- From: Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>
- To: Mark McLoughlin <markmc redhat com>
- Cc: Jeff Waugh <jdub perkypants org>, GNOME Desktop Hackers <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Proposed: vino
- Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:52:14 +0100
On Mon, 2004-07-19 at 13:42, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-07-19 at 13:28, Andrew Sobala wrote:
> > On Mon, 2004-07-19 at 11:11, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > > (This is a thread-starter for the final module discussion before the release
> > > team reports back with a summary and proposal, which will aim to represent
> > > the consensus of the community. Please be kind to authors, and start totally
> > > new threads if there's a reason to shift off-topic.)
> > >
> > > Description:
> > >
> > > Vino is a VNC server for GNOME - it allows someone to remotely connect
> > > to your desktop session using the RFB protocol.
> > >
> > * Would be really, really nice IMHO if we could push this in with a VNC
> > viewer (or launcher for vncviewer) included.
> A gtk+ dialog to launch vncviewer wouldn't be a big deal. Might get a
> chance to do that, but we're in feature freeze ...
> > * Control panel looks nice, I think it's functionality we should have if
> > we can get a VNC viewer too as mentioned above, but unfortunately it
> > segfaults for me when I try to connect to it. Hrrrrrrrum.
> > [Connection failed: No security type suitable for RFB 3.3 supported]
> > [Segmention fault]
> > This leads on to...
> > * Stability
> This is the server or the client ? If its the server, where's the bug
> report ? :-)
> (If this is an error message from the client, set
> /desktop/gnome/remote_access/require_encryption to false - that's a
> hangover from previous releases.)
That was the server, looking at bugzilla it seems it was bug 143567.
> > (and it's a server, so also security) concerns.
> "Its a server so there might be security concerns" is not a good way to
> start a discussion about security. I'm aware that its a server, that it
> has to handle potentially malicious data etc. and paid close attention
> to that when coding. No doubt there may have been mistakes but...
Sure. What I was trying to say was "It segfaulted on me -> Aren't
servers meant to be more careful with their memory than that?" It's
probably not a realistic point, though, just a single slip in handling
the non-encrypted case. I Am Not A Real Programmer, etc.
] [Thread Prev