>>> VNC wasn't really designed for efficiency.
>>
>> The fail!
>
> Nope. It was just designed to be easy to implement instead of being
> efficient.

If you're designing a system to control other systems remotely, the 
efficiency of that system over a low network link ought to be the number 
one priority. If I'm remote-controlling a system, I don't really care 
how easy it is to implement the wire protocol; I care whether it *works* 
well.

> Show me X-Windows ported to a javascript client.

Why would you want to do that?

Post a reply to this message

>> Now imagine if there were a standard, widely-implemented system for
>> letting the customer make those configuration changes themselves...
>> Let's face it, the ISP's routers are almost certainly remote-manageable
>> anyway. If the unwanted packets can be blocked at the entrance to the
>> ISP's network, they can save themselves the bother of having to route a
>> bunch of traffic. (Although the amount of data you can fire at one
>> customer is probably peanuts compared to the ISP network capacity.)
>>
>> Ah well, dream on...
>
> Then it would take 2.5 nanoseconds for a hacker to steal your
> credentials and make those changes for you. BLAM! total denial of service.

...or you could, you know, make it so the command interface is only 
accessible from the customer's side of the firewall? Then they have to 
actually hack the customer's system first.

> Some IDS/IPS vendors have programmed routines in their systems that can
> automatically change firewall rules in the event that they detect an
> attack, yet the majority of installations leave this feature turned off
> because people are afraid of false alerts blocking valid traffic, and
> having HAL in control of the pod bay doors.
>
> I'm sure ISPs feel the same way about having their customers be able to
> play with their firewall configs.

Well, yeah, you wouldn't want to give clueless users direct access to 
the actual firewall configuration. You'd want some higher-level way of 
allowing people to select "features" they want or don't want, and then 
have some software manage translating that into actual IP configuration 
changes. (For starters, there are going to be rules that the ISP don't 
want users to be able to turn off...)

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011-09-19 04:16, Invisible a écrit :
>>>> VNC wasn't really designed for efficiency.
>>>
>>> The fail!
>>
>> Nope. It was just designed to be easy to implement instead of being
>> efficient.
>
> If you're designing a system to control other systems remotely, the
> efficiency of that system over a low network link ought to be the number
> one priority. If I'm remote-controlling a system, I don't really care
> how easy it is to implement the wire protocol; I care whether it *works*
> well.
>
>> Show me X-Windows ported to a javascript client.
>
> Why would you want to do that?

Because it would be fully buzzword compliant.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 9/19/2011 1:16, Invisible wrote:
> efficiency of that system over a low network link ought to be the number one
> priority.

Uh, no.  VNC was *specifically* designed to be trivial to implement at both 
ends.

> If I'm remote-controlling a system, I don't really care how easy
> it is to implement the wire protocol; I care whether it *works* well.

Except you aren't the person who designed VNC. You're the person who should 
be using RDP or maybe X-Windows, or NeWS, or any of the other dozens of 
remote graphics solutions.

>> Show me X-Windows ported to a javascript client.
> Why would you want to do that?

Ask the guys who wrote VNC, which runs in a web browser too, you know.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 19/09/2011 06:49 PM, Darren New wrote:

> Uh, no. VNC was *specifically* designed to be trivial to implement at
> both ends.

And here I was thinking it was designed to, you know, allow you to 
remote control things. Because there aren't any other cross-platform 
solutions for doing that.

> Except you aren't the person who designed VNC. You're the person who
> should be using RDP or maybe X-Windows, or NeWS, or any of the other
> dozens of remote graphics solutions.

It's news to me that "dozens of remote graphics solutions" exist. It's 
certainly news to me that any of them work on more than one platform.

> Ask the guys who wrote VNC, which runs in a web browser too, you know.

In what universe is that useful?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 19:25:40 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> On 19/09/2011 06:49 PM, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Uh, no. VNC was *specifically* designed to be trivial to implement at
>> both ends.
> 
> And here I was thinking it was designed to, you know, allow you to
> remote control things. Because there aren't any other cross-platform
> solutions for doing that.

Like RDP, for example?  Yes, I have an RDP client that runs on Linux.

>> Except you aren't the person who designed VNC. You're the person who
>> should be using RDP or maybe X-Windows, or NeWS, or any of the other
>> dozens of remote graphics solutions.
> 
> It's news to me that "dozens of remote graphics solutions" exist. It's
> certainly news to me that any of them work on more than one platform.

Teamviewer, VNC, NoMachine's NX client/server, XDMCP...I could go on.

>> Ask the guys who wrote VNC, which runs in a web browser too, you know.
> 
> In what universe is that useful?

In a universe where you don't have or want to install a full-blown client 
locally.

Say you need to remotely access a system from your public library's 
computer.  I'm sure they won't let you install arbitrary software on 
their system.  But they probably have Java installed for the browser.

Hell, the remote exams I used to run at Novell could be run in a browser 
- far easier to support in some ways than having to walk a non-technical 
person through installing a client and making sure the software 
functioned properly.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 9/19/2011 11:25, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> And here I was thinking it was designed to, you know, allow you to remote
> control things.

Which it does.

> Because there aren't any other cross-platform solutions for
> doing that.

Nonsense.

> It's news to me that "dozens of remote graphics solutions" exist. It's
> certainly news to me that any of them work on more than one platform.

I'm not surprised. :-)

>> Ask the guys who wrote VNC, which runs in a web browser too, you know.
> In what universe is that useful?

In the universe where you may need to log into your machine remotely from a 
machine where you aren't allowed to install software?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

Le 20/09/2011 03:08, Darren New a écrit :
>>> Ask the guys who wrote VNC, which runs in a web browser too, you know.
>> In what universe is that useful?
> 
> In the universe where you may need to log into your machine remotely
> from a machine where you aren't allowed to install software?

More specifically, in the universe where you are on a remote machine
where you aren't allowed to install software and which also lack basic
communication facilities like telnet, ftp and ssh client by default.
(Guess what, there is probably only one successfull OS provider which
still match both criteria).


That's a more tiny universe.

Post a reply to this message

On 9/19/2011 23:52, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> which also lack basic
> communication facilities like telnet, ftp and ssh client by default.

It has nothing to do with that. The presence of an FTP client is not going 
to get you a graphical interface into your machine.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 20/09/2011 07:52 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:

> More specifically, in the universe where you are on a remote machine
> where you aren't allowed to install software and which also lack basic
> communication facilities like telnet, ftp and ssh client by default.
> (Guess what, there is probably only one successfull OS provider which
> still match both criteria).

Well, Windows ships with Telnet and FTP by default. The only one missing 
is SSH - and *clients* for SSH aren't hard to find.

Post a reply to this message