Jump to content

Talk:VNC

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is VNC a Protocol or an Application?

[edit]

The introductory paragraph describes VNC as a "system", but it's not clear whether that system is a protocol/standard or a software application. Obviously both the protocol and implementations exist, but is "VNC" the protocol or the application? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScribeMonk (talk • contribs) 05:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to MIT, VNC is the protocol formerly referred to as Remote Framebeffer (RFB) http://web.mit.edu/cdsdev/src/howitworks.html I can find no indication on this article as to when the shift from referring to the protocol as RFB to VNC was made (if in fact it was) but it appears that MIT copied this information from the original ORL website before they closed in 2002. Why then is it still referred to as RFB, even in RealVNC's March 2011 RFP? https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6143
As for the question of whether VNC is an application, I can say will all certainty that this is not the case. At the very least, if not a protocol in itself, VNC is a set of standards. The RFC mentioned above even refers to VNC as an authentication mechanism (VNC Authentication). WhiteWolf5 (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Untitled 1)

[edit]

AFAIK VNC has limitations in comparison with Microsoft RDP do not allowing forwarding audio and having multiple sessions, maybe it should be noted in article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.92 (talk • contribs) 25 August 2005

RDP and other proprietary tools such as Timbuktu and GoToMyPC are worth mentioning. Multiple sessions are supported with most VNCs but AFAIK sound is not supported directly by any of them. Also there are quite a few VNC servers and clients not listed on the current tools page. Jruuska 16:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Untitled 2)

[edit]

Also, worth mentioning NX/FreeNX, which compresses the X protocol transparently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardNeill (talk • contribs) 18 October 2005

Back Orifice peer review

[edit]

We are having a peer review for remote administration tool Back Orifice. We're hoping that you could join the discussion and give us some ideas, how to improve the article further. --Easyas12c 19:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Please don't remove text or links from this wiki unless the text or links are inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbostedor (talk • contribs)

Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Particularly the section on "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links..." AlistairMcMillan 16:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to start a campaign to remove all links from all subjects on wikipedia, be my guest but until then, please leave this topic alone. - George MacDonald - 20 January 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.81.74 (talk • contribs)

I agree. If someone posts links here that provide no value and are not related to VNC, they should be removed but the links that where removed by Alistair where clearly not wiki spam and contained valued information about VNC in addition to third party VNC helpers. Unless more people agre with him, I will continue to revert back to how it was before this whole drama began.
Remember that wiki spam is characterized by links that are OUT OF CONTEXT with the subject of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbostedor (talk • contribs)
I can see where both parties are coming from. Wiki spam is going crazy. I reviewed the edits and I don't see any valdalism by either party. I believe that we all have the same goals here. Let's keep it how it was unless more than one person has a problem with it. - Brad Koffman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.250.10.121 (talk • contribs)
And if any of you had any edits that didn't involve adding links to vncscan then you might have a credible argument. Every single link to vncscan is going to be removed. Please find somewhere else to advertise your product. Wikipedia is not that place. AlistairMcMillan 12:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alistar, you could not be more wrong, my friend. Nobody here cares about an individual project as far as I can tell. I checked all of the reversions of your edits and the people who are reverting your edits are putting back about 15 links to different projects and not just VNCScan. Why do you single out that one project? None of our edits have anything to do with a single project. We could care less about vncscan. I've never even used it before.
Also keep in mind that at the bottom of the page remains a list of links to other commercial software like PC Anywhere. You are very inconsistant. You can't eliminate just the software that you have a problem with. It sounds like you are workng for a competitor to VNCScan and are trying to harm their reputation. We don't want that garbage here.
I am going to revert it back to the way that it was before you started your campaign, also. We would all appreciate it if you would please take your campaign to another topic and leave this one alone. It was doing just fine before you arrived. You are harming the usefulness of wikipedia when you take information away from the site unwaranted. - Brad Koffman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.250.10.121 (talk • contribs)
I take it you are aware that your edit history is recorded on Wikipedia [1]. Would you please point to an edit that doesn't involve vncscan? AlistairMcMillan 15:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Sbostedor: External links are supposed to point readers to websites that will give them more information about the articles subject. A list of software that uses the VNC protocol does not inform the reader in any way about VNC. AlistairMcMillan 15:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted this on RFC to see if we can get some more opinions on the matter. AlistairMcMillan 15:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, I'm sure that you didn't realize but I do work for VNCScan although this should not come into play here because none of my edits promote VNCScan in any way. When I reverted something back, I reverted all of the links back to how they have always been and not just VNCScan. I'm not sure what is motivating this Alistair guy but I hope that everyone realizes that Bozteck would never involved ourselves in link spam!
I wouldn't go as far as saying that he's a competitor that is trying to damage us but I do think that he is out of line here. I understand that he doesn't want it to be a link farm and we can keep it that way by only posting links that contain information or projects relating to VNC that the reader would be interested in. If someone posts a link to viagra, we should get rid of it, of course. - Steve --Sbostedor 15:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys,

I've done some thinking about this issue and I think that we can all come to a compromise by only removing links to commercial software from the links (including VNCScan). It was never our intent to spam the wiki. The link to VNCScan has been in this article for over a year and nobody has had a problem with it until now because the VNCScan website has a wealth of VNC information that many have found very useful.
Since this is such a problem, now, I am fine with removing the link but all other non-free software must also be removed. If there is an informational page on the VNCScan website, a link may be provided to that page but not to any page that promotes VNCScan.
I believe that this will make everyone happy. I will make the edits today.

--Sbostedor 16:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial or not?

[edit]

I added a link to TightVNC, but it quickly got removed by Nathanrdotcom saying that "commercial links — or links to your own private websites" is not allowed. I find this very strange. www.tightvnc.com is hardly my private website. It's not very commercial either - you can't buy anything! Speaking of commercial sites, though, please note that RealVNC IS commercial. As a side note, I don't understand how it could be called more "official" than other implementations. I think there are many valid reasons to link to the TightVNC web site. TightVNC is highly popular - it has been selected as "Project of the month" on Sourceforge and is the 9th most popular project on Freshmeat.net! RealVNC, as a comparision, is on place 119. --PeterAstrand 08:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note for RFC visitors

[edit]

Please note that User:Sbostedor is Steve Bostedor, owner and founder of Bozteck that produces vncscan.

Please check these editors contributions. AlistairMcMillan 15:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, the vncscan link was first added by User:68.250.10.121 in this May 2005 edit. AlistairMcMillan 16:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of these links where created by people with no affiliation to the projects. Was the compromise not good enough for you, Alistair? Why do you continue to defame? --Sbostedor 16:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rules for internal links are different from the rules for external links. If you think there is a problem with the links on the template then please go and edit the template. AlistairMcMillan 18:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like sbostedor is a victim of discrimination by Alistair. Who made Alistar the King of the Wiki, anyways? You need to get a life, bro! VNC is much bigger than your own little desires. Why isn't he complaining about any of the other commercial software links? Maybe because he either works for one of them or he has stock in a competing product? This all sounds very fishy to me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.77.109.142 (talk • contribs)

Please try to remember to sign your contributions. Please also try to understand the difference between internal and external links. Also if you are aware of a group of editors who are spamming a commercial link somewhere else then please let me know and I'll deal with them in exactly the same way. BTW Funny that you misspelled my name in exactly the same way that Steve misspelled it. We have rules against Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. AlistairMcMillan 20:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This is stupid, guys. It looks like everyone got what they wanted so just walk away. alistair, I thought that you had a point until I see you persist at being a total jerk on here. You're ruining this website. Please leave. I've seen this requested by a few different IP addresses so far so catch a hint where you're not wanted.

I will delete this shortly. It does this topic no good to see a bunch of bickering about stupid shit.

--12.111.239.3 23:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you delete the discussion on this page again you will be banned for vandalism and it will be reverted. AlistairMcMillan 00:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, Please stop this insanity! I believe that Alistair just wants to do his part to keep wikipedia from turning into a spam fest. After putting myself in his shoes, I completely understand why he jumped on this so strongly. I've removed the commercial software links and I believe that the case is closed here. Please leave him alone and move on. Thank you --Sbostedor 09:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, Steve. I admire your candidness here along with Alistair's patience with how heated this got. I really don't understand why a VNC related project that charges vs. one that doesn't should be treated any differently but this isn't my web site to have any say.
Good luck to everyone and I'm glad that this issue has been resolved. P.S. - I don't see the misspelling that was supposed to tie Steve to one of the other posters. Even if it exists, it's probably a coincidence. There’s only so many ways that you can phonetically misspell Alistair. =D (George) --71.13.81.74 23:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to RfC

[edit]

Move the RealVNC link down to the "external links" section, and get rid of everything else in the list of implementations. We're not here to try to replace the Open Directory Project. --Carnildo 06:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. AlistairMcMillan 19:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities to X

[edit]

VNC seems to have much in common with the X protocol, but there's nothing in the VNC article about it. Should there be a discussion about the similarities and differences? (I know little or nothing about VNC, though I do know a little about X.) Wocky 09:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Untitled 3)

[edit]

Need some links in this article about how to VNC. And VNC over SSH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.105.242 (talk • contribs) 14:25 06 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This is not the place for tutorials. Try Google. Lambyuk 19:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cabal case

[edit]

Hi. I'm a mediator from the mediation cabal and I saw the start of a filing. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-02 TightVNC link on VNC page A few comments:

  1. This is a very low activity article for mediation. Mediation can involve a lot of time. Are you sure discussion or a neutral 3rd party isn't a better option?
  2. There doesn't seem to have been any real attempt to discuss this issue. The link was created then deleted and a complaint filled
  3. You have an experienced administrator monitoring the group, AlistairMcMillan. Why not make use of his experience and knowledge?

I'm going to close this case out. If after really thinking about it this seems worth doing then I (or someone else) will be happy to mediate, but there hasn't been any real effort at dispute resolution prior to this case being opened. jbolden1517Talk 17:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VNC Security

[edit]

"As with any server software, if the port used by this service is explicitly blocked by a firewall it is practically impossible to break into the service. In other words a network administrator has to enable firewalling for 5901 on the local router in order to prevent access from outside the LAN."

While such a security measure would disallow direct access to the service (from the internet), Any other service which is compromised, which can be accessed from the internet and has access to the LAN, would defeat such a measure (Especially SSH or HTTPS (eg via a compromised CGI program), as encrypted connections are hidden even from IDS and other security systems involving packet inspection systems, assuming an IDS was configured to detect VNC), and then there's always the option of getting a direct ethernet connection the the LAN with a bit of social engineering. Therefore, "practically impossible" is incorrect.

It's also lacking a citation. Hydroksyde 03:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.[1]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[2] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.[3]
  • Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.[4]
  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 2(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.[5]
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [6]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Bwhack 15:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ See footnote
  2. ^ See footnote
  3. ^ See footnote
  4. ^ See footnote
  5. ^ See footnote
  6. ^ See footnote

Proposed "VNC Loop" merge

[edit]

This is with regards to the request by William Graham to merge VNC Loop into this article. It must be noted that they used to be merged, but VNC Loop was separated into its own article. --Amit 03:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd oppose merger. And if people don't think VNC Loop merits its own article then perhaps it should be marked for deletion. I get that being able to do this with VNC is amusing - for all of ten seconds - but it really doesn't need to be explained in such great detail. Also "VNC Loop" would appear to be a neologism. AlistairMcMillan 18:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm for the merger. Yes, it's surely a neologism (and a self-explaining one). A google search suggests that it's mostly regarded as an amusing effect (but not too different from putting two mirrors or a TV camera and monitor face to face) and a potential way to swamp down a system. The latter information deserves mention in the VNC article (a section?), but definitely not a stub without hope of further growth. arielCo 15:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a shame that we have rules against neologisms. AlistairMcMillan 17:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the effect that deserves mention. The term "VNC Loop" is just used to reference the effect. If avoiding neologisms is a serious concern in this case, it should be merged. --Amit 22:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the "vnc loop" idea is really not related to VNC - it is a generic video feedback phenomenon that has existed since a video camera was first pointed at a video monitor. It should be marked for deletion and not clutter up the VNC article. There is probably another article that talks about the general phenomenon. User:Nealmcb 04:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably another article? Let's be certain here. If there is a proper general article, VNC Loop could go there as an example of the phenomenon, but otherwise the info shouldn't be lost. ---Amit 07:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suppose a merge would be good unless, as stated above, an article for the general phenomenon could be found and the VNC loop be incorporated as a specific instance of that. It is after all a VNC-related phenomenon. Also as stated above, this information should not be lost, so please merge rather than delete. Qwertyca 23:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a general "optical feedback" article which probably deserves mention of the effect, but it doesn't seem okay to move all of the content from VNC Loop into that article. --Amit 06:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

[edit]

Users unconditionally supporting the merger:

  1. William Graham
  2. Bill.matthews
  3. arielCo

Users opposing the merger:

  1. AlistairMcMillan
  2. Nealmcb
  3. Phoe6

So what happened to the VNC loop page? it's gone and not integrated into this article either!? 165.230.46.159 23:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone entirely thanks to AlistairMcMillan who insisted that it did not meet the WP:VERIFY criteria. As per AlistairMcMillan, any amount of user consensus to merge the article is insufficient to overrule WP:VERIFY. There were sources - forums, personal pages, and Flickr, but as per AlistairMcMillan, all of them don't count, presumably because they are not reliable enough. So it's okay to include in WP stupid shit like Kerry and Bush calling each other crazy, liars, and asking for BS apologies, but it's not okay to include VNC Loop in WP. --Amit 23:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VERIFY is one of the three content policies of Wikipedia. It clearly states "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." It later clarifies "reliable sources": "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Of the three types of sources you mention above (forums, personal pages and Flickr), do you really think any of them come close to meeting that standard?

Also I'm sorry but I don't think there is a "user consensus should over-rule WP:VERIFY" policy, perhaps you could try proposing it somewhere. AlistairMcMillan 01:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

screenshot

[edit]

Is censoring the screenshot really nessessary? Hundreds of articles on Wikipedia contain screenshots of copyrighted software. I didn't know it was a big problem.72.43.196.123 21:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about a screen shot in English? 69.177.106.166 (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

remote sound and graphics

[edit]

Could someone perhaps add an entry to this article explaining how to also get remote sound in addition to the graphics please? --Rebroad 14:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started RealVNC article

[edit]

I just started the RealVNC article, because people don't think it belongs here (Virtual Network Computing), but I think it still deserves mention on Wikipedia, especially if UltraVNC has its own article. Feel free to improve it. --Spoon! 04:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Comparison of VNC software" section

[edit]

The external links in this section are inappropriate per WP:EL and WP:NOT#LINK. I'm removing the links, leaving the red links to what may become real articles. --Ronz 21:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking details on VNC protocols

[edit]

I came to the VNC page seeking details on how it works, specifically in regards to which protocols are commonly used, and how they are implemented. How is raw scanline data formatted? How does hextile work? These are things I want to know, and I think they are relevant. Is this the correct place to find this information? If it is, then I hope somebody more experienced than myself can contribute. Otherwise, I will do my best to add to this article. iridium 20:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal for comparison of VNC software

[edit]

I created comparison of remote desktop software today before I had seen the comparison of VNC software section. I think a comparison of all types of remote desktop software would be more useful to most potential users than the narrow comparison of VNC software, (even if my initial attempt is rubbish and clearly should be redesigned), so I propose this merge. Of course we could try to have both, but that would be redundant and could lead to inconsistency and duplication of effort.—greenrd 01:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and completed this merger, as it seems sensible. --MaTrIx 04:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compatible Systems?

[edit]

How about a list of systems which a VNC program is available for? I'd put it on myself but I don't know which systems it's available for. Include things like Symbian OS and Windows Mobile (if they're available)


-Forlornity 87.82.6.16 20:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That information is in Comparison of remote desktop software (there is a link to that article in this one).—greenrd 20:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I last looked at this article back in early 2006 and found it useful. Today, it is the victim of so much heavy handed "correctness" that it is disorganized and difficult to follow. I find it ironic that a semi-automatic Java editor (a dead machine, in other words) is showing more common sense, flexibility and reader orientation in its suggestions than some of the folks who have worked this article over. Is there any point in my even trying to restore some order and structure or is everyone still poised to remove and delete everything? The rules are there to keep Wikepedia useful, but it seems as if all sides looked until they found a rule- or three- which permitted them to gut whatever body of text they wanted to get rid of. I'll give it a week or two and if it looks safe, I'll try to make things a bit more accessable.Panthera germanicus 10:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contradicting information on who created VNC

[edit]

In the introduction:

VNC was originally developed at AT&T.

In the History section:

VNC was created at the Olivetti & Oracle Research Lab, which was then owned by Olivetti and Oracle Corporation.

These seem pretty contradictionary, could someone clarify who actually made it? --Munksgaard 18:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It does seam contradictory, I would go with the history section, becuase it goes on to say in the History section:

In 1999 AT&T acquired the lab, and in 2002 closed down the lab's research efforts.

The official VNC mailing list[2] only goes back to Feb 1998, and they are already talking about VNC version 3.3
The introduction was added in this revision [3]. The history section was added in this revision [4]. So the contradiction has existed for over 3 years.
I've added a Self-contradictory template --Phiren (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VNC port numbers and IANA registry

[edit]

The only port number that is officially registered with Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Authority for use by VNC is port 5900. Mentioning other ports that could be assigned to other protocols at any time (including 5901-5906 and 5800-5806) might mislead users into trusting it is safe to use those ports, and then a port conflict could result on their system or in practice. IMHO, the main article should either only document the official port, or mention that use (abuse) of the unassigned port numbers may change or be incompatible with other things in the future. --Cjnifty 20:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Playing games through VNC?

[edit]

I have a question, is it possible to play games on a weak computer if the weak computer is connected to one that is capable of playing games? I would use the stronger computer to run the game and the weaker of the two to control it, although I it'd make a lot more sense if things were rendered locally, so I might be out of luck on that one. I can't try this out myself but it'd be very interesting to find out. :) 84.216.46.57 (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular experience of this but I doubt that it would work satisfactorily, if at all. You network link is slow compared to a video card bus - this isn't really a problem for business style apps or graphically straightforward games such as solitaire. Not the case with full motion video and/or 3D rendering so the frame rate would drop considerably. I doubt it would work in the first place though - when I've tried similar with Terminal Services and a fairly graphically undemanding game, it flatly refused to work. Like many games it needed DirectX and neither system provides a DirectX link to the remote video card, even if such a link is theoretically possible. CrispMuncher (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RealVNC Personal and Enterprise edtions

[edit]

since Google considers VNC and RealVNC as same, and dedicated RealVNC page looks not mature yet, i'm raising this question here

Could someone please explain if commercial editions are actual GPL violations or not, given the following facts:

  1. original AT&T lab's VNC code covered by GPL
  2. derivative RealVNC Free edtiton code covered by GPL
  3. derivatives RealVNC Personal and Enterprise editions appears to be not covered

most probably commercial and free editions are sharing same covered code. doesnt it make commercial editions covered too? i dont see any mentioning of dual licensing on their website... --Al Leween (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only the copyright holders have standing to sue, if they think there have been any copyright violations. In the absence of a lawsuit or at least allegation from the copyright holders, it would be libellous to make such allegations ourselves. This is for a very good reason - the copyright holders might have given permission. We can't know that (unless, of course, we know that the copyright holders are the same people as the people selling proprietary software!) - only the copyright holders can know that. This is an all-purpose reply without any reference to the facts of the case, and is not legal advice, and anyway I am not a lawyer.—greenrd (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that RealVNC own the copyright and the protocol specification (presumably as successors in interest to AT&T) and hence they can re-licence the code as they see fit. RealVNC is essentially the same team that wrote VNC in the first place at AT&T. The fact that they don't mention that a non-GPL version is available doesn't mean it isn't. Assuming I am right, their commercial version is definitely legal. All GPLed extensions of the original GPLed code are also legal (TightVNC etc) as the GPL allows this. I assume that all the other commercial versions either have done one of three things:
  1. Purchased non-GPL licences from RealVNC.
  2. Include the GPLed VNC in complete, separate and redistributable form and wrap their commercial product around it (as many PDF tools do with Ghostscript).
  3. Allow their entire product to become GPLed by inclusion of the GPLed VNC code. This would not prevent them selling it. All they would have to do is make source code available. If their software works in conjunction with a subscription based service (in the style of GoToMyPC or LogMeIn) then users will still need to buy subscriptions, so their revenue would not be affected by the software being GPLed.
This is an interesting question, given that so many commercial remote access tools seem to be partially VNC based. We shouldn't include any speculative information in the article but if anybody can find solid reference material on this subject then it would be worth including. (BTW: I renamed the section because I don't want us to go off topic arguing about the supposedly "viral" effects of the GPL.) --DanielRigal (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Enterprise and Personal are not covered under the GPL as they don't contain the code from Free, that is my understanding. They're separate bits of software.82.71.34.4 (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RealVNC Ltd (RealVNC is a company, not a product) owns the trademark to VNC and RFB, all copyrights, and owns/maintains the protocol standard. As such, they're fit to modify and release VNC Free Edition as non-GPL commercial/proprietary software. In all reality, VNC Enterprise Edition is now so far from the original VNC Free Edition code it's an entirely different product.

Non-RealVNC commercial VNC products would likely be challenged by VNC. There are however commercial products *based* on certain aspects of the VNC or RFB protocols, but are products in their own right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.44.6.81 (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Security

[edit]

Does the line "Hamachi has been purchased by LogMeIn and is no longer freeware, though it's free for non-commercial use." in the security section add any value to the VNC article. Its true (no doubt about that) but this is not the place. It should be removed. Raoravikiran (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy of history and references

[edit]

This may be incorrect but I believe VNC was created by Bell Labs sometime in the 1980s. Whether or not this is true, the article needs historical references to support whatever is claimed. It ought to be removed otherwise, or expressed as folklore. Kernel.package (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are wrong. You have missed the historical references (such as the original paper) that are linked to within the article. It does not need more proof that VNC was developed at ORL in the 1990s. 82.71.34.4 (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

list of VNC software

[edit]

Someone should add a list of the different VNC's available. Here are some, TightVNC, RealVNC, UltraVNC. iPad VNC viewers VNC Pocket Office Pro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parystec (talk • contribs) 17:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Sherzad (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actual years in history section

[edit]

"at a time when Olivetti and Oracle Corporation owned the lab" And WHEN was that? Sheesh, have you not had history in school? It's full of actual dates, unlike this article. "When Olivetti and Oracle owned the lab" tells me nothing. And especially not about when VNC was designed/invented. Pre 2002 is all I can tell from this section. jae (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:VNC&oldid=1245665532"