That was a port of the XWindow version of VNC server if i am correct.Originally posted by VGZ
I know there is at least one vnc server that works under OS X.
1) Incorrect. You can always encrypt any tcp stream. Apple will NOT have to design a new tool |-pOriginally posted by zpincus
While a PDF version of X windows forwarding would be nice, it still leaves a few gaps.
1) ssh won\'t be likely to be able to natively forward the PDF commands in an encrypted state. Apple will need to design a new tool for this.
2) it won\'t work cross-platform like VNC does.
What makes you think a VNC-like solution would be faster than a PDF one?! The changes the Quartz output goes through are just as complex.
Number 2 is why VNC is so huge for me and a lot of people I go to school with. PDF forwarding won\'t let me use my OS X box from, say, a windows machine, unless someone writes an XTools or eXceed type solution that is likely to be slow in coming and very expensive. (And at least Xtools only happened b/c Xfree86 is opensource -- can you imagine trying to replicate Quartz on x86 with no code to go from?)
You can test your theory using Win32. It\'s not practical. You would be far better off converting ghostscript into a remote PDF viewer.
I agree with Strobe that a VNC that deals with Quartz isn\'t going to be an easy port. But I don\'t think it will be impossible.
At some point, Quartz spits out the final, rendered screen, pixel by pixel, and sends it to the monitor. I don\'t see why it would be impossible for VNC to intercept this and send it on a network. Just treat Quartz as the only process that draws pixels, and ignore the other processes that interact with Quartz on earlier levels. This would also solve the transparency problem, because then I\'d imagine the VNC server wouldn\'t bog down on transparent dragging any more than Quartz does -- because it is still Quartz\'s responsibility to render transparency, and not VNCServer\'s.
It isn\'t, and you can confirm it yourself. Please don\'t waste your time (and possibly Apple\'s)
Now, this notion is a little strange to those familiar with *NIX VNCServers, where the VNCServer can actually substitute for the window server (ie: you don\'t need to be actively running X for VNC to work.)
But even in OS 9, VNCServer sits on top of Apple\'s \"windows server.\" It can\'t generate an independant display on its own, and instead the VNC server mediates communication with the OS 9 display over the network. (So if you are VNCing into an OS 9 box, your mouse movements on the \"VNC side\" makes the cursor actually move on the screen.)
So there\'s a precdent for VNC servers sitting on top of and not replacing a window server... can this be extended to OS X/Quartz? I have no idea.
It might take Apple\'s cooperation, though, and perhaps a lot of it. And of course, my thinking on this may be totally wrong. Does anyone who has done VNC work before know if this is a totally faulty idea?
Anyway, I\'m going right now to nag Apple and tell them to make it easy to do a VNC Server for Quartz, just on the off chance that it is possible.
several weeks ago, for you to explain how the fact that semitransparent objects bog down win32 VNC applies to OS X. (Which as you yourself mentioned, uses an entirely different window server paradigm than Win32.)VNC isn't designed for what's termed '3rd generation display servers'. In X11 or Win32 each pixel is drawn by one process directly to screen. Quartz doesn't work that way. Try dragging a semi-transparent object in Win32 over VNC and watch it slow to a crawl.
is entirely fallacious. Certain VNC encodings work best for these scenarios, true, but VNC is by no means crippled in their absence.The bottom line is VNC is designed to work with a picture where you have groups of similar pixels being moved around.