Re: Vino: proposal for inclusion in GNOME 2.8

[Luis Villa <louie novell com>]

On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 14:47 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 14:21, Luis Villa wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 06:29 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2004-07-12 at 21:03, Luis Villa wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 05:51 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > > > > <quote who="Luis Villa">
> > > > > 
> > > > > > On Mon, 2004-07-12 at 20:40 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > > > > > > perhaps its useful to get this in 2.8.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > why?
> > > > > 
> > > > > It's bloody useful, even the way it is at the moment. Plus, wider testing,
> > > > > and ability to compete in the feature paralysis review stakes.
> > > > 
> > > > But given that (as far as I can see) there is basically no gnome
> > > > integration at the moment
> > > 
> > > 	I must have a different definition of GNOME integration than you ...
> > > how does Vino have "basically no gnome integration"?
> > 
> > >From my reading of your own description, most of the cool, tie-in-with-
> > other-bits stuff (gdm, for example) would be in the 2.10 timeframe.
> 
> 	Don't get too side tracked by the gdm type stuff I've been prototyping.
> Have a look at KDE's krfb and you'll see its very similar to Vino - yes,
> Vino doesn't have some of krfb's minor collaboration focused features.

We should have a higher bar than KDE :)

> >  I mean, we don't even have a VNC viewer
> 
> 	People seem to be happy using vncviewer once there's a gtk dialog to
> launch it (i.e. tsclient). Maybe I should just write a simple vncviewer
> launcher dialog?

That would certainly make it a much easier sell to me, and I think much
more useful from the 'feature paralysis review stakes' perspective jeff
mentioned. 

> > - how is this different from
> > proposing, say, a jabber server with a gtk configuration tool? Or hell,
> > X+redhat-config-xfree86? Both of those things are useful servers, sure,
> > but it's not clear why they would belong in gnome, other than 'useful,
> > and has a gtk interface at some point.'
> 
> 	The server itself is a GTK+ program. It needs to be in order to pop up
> the "someone is trying to connect" dialog and, in future, for the status
> icon and whatever. The server itself is configured with GConf. Its a
> per-user server that gets activated by gnome-session based on whether
> the user wants to allow others users to connect.
> 
> 	Take a look at RealVNC's "x0vncserver" and similar other screen scraper
> VNC servers and try to figure out how to actually make it useful to
> GNOME users and you'll see that all these things need to be done and
> that it belongs in the desktop itself. I'm not sure how else I can
> explain it ...

I'll have to look at it some more. I have to admit I haven't had time to
set it up myself yet, so I've been getting all my information about it
from your blog and your two pages :)

> > [As a side note, 'getting wider testing' is not a reason to get into the
> > desktop release- you should get wide testing /before/ getting into the
> > desktop release, so that we make sure that the desktop remains at a high
> > level of quality.]
> 
> 	I neither said that was a reason for including it, nor think it would
> be a good reason for including anything.

Jeff did, wasn't responding just to you :)

Luis