General newbie questions

[sakal]

Hi all.

At first i have to thanks to all developers of this project.
YOU DID REALY GOOD JOB !!! THANKS 2 all of you !

here is me newbie questions

I have little bit issue with speed of screen of remote client. so my questions is related to this topic:
1) can i speed up remote desktop ?
2) what options speed up remote screen ?> colors ? or encryption or what?
3) can i have on ChuckVNC some speed as in TeamView ? Because i have realy 5times slower {delay} in comperetaion ChuckVNC vs TeamViewer.
4) Can it be with version of repeater ?
5) Can somebody give me some tip what is best repeater for linux systems?

Ps: Maybe is good to mention i use repeter to connect with client.
repeater is linux based and it is running in 1Gbit line with 4core processor.
At the moment i am using repeater014.zip from : http://koti.mbnet.fi/jtko/uvncrepeater/

[Rat]

Speed is mainly a function of your network connection bandwidth.

If you use the repeater then you may find this useful, (I did): [topic=18106][/topic]

Cheers,
Rat.

[supercoe]

We strive to beat TeamViewer and someday we will but at this point in time it's difficult to compare UltraVNC speed to a commercial product.

Consider lowering the video quality.

Open the Viewer\Bin\chunkviewer.ini and adjust the Quality=3 setting.

1 = AUTO (auto select best settings, this never use ultra experimental maybe "forever")
2 = LAN (> 1Mbit/s) Max Colors
3 = MEDIUM (> 128Kbit/s )- 256 Colors
4 = MODEM (19K - 128Kbit/s) - 64 Colors
5 = SLOW (< 19Kbit/s) 8 Colors
6 = (custom ?) N/A (not available and fail)
7 = ULTRA (> 2Mbit/s) - Experimental (still experimental after 2 years)

[sakal]

@supercoe

I got 2Mbit/s connection on viewer and server side. even i adjust the Quality setting. 4 = MODEM (19K - 128Kbit/s) - 64 Colors response and speed are not fast as in TeamView.

Can it be because of repeater ? What repeater is best to use in linux OS?

[supercoe]

You'll achieve maximum performance if the repeater is on the same LAN as the Viewer but even then TeamViewer achieves more performance because of its custom protocol vs VNC.

We're working on it.

[Rat]

I thought TeamViewer used VNC? In fact the config dialogs look very similar to RealVNC, TightVNC et al...

[supercoe]

TeamViewer 1 and 2 were VNC based and open source (even used Ultra code according to Redge), 3 and greater are closed source and they claimed it was because of a full rewrite and custom protocol.

I'm hope the similarities exist because why change it if it works when rewriting but sadly I think they like many other companies just ripped off open source programs.

[Rat]

Unless they changed every line of code, (unlikely in the extreme), then the FSF could quite reasonably launch an action against them, (as they did with LinkSys and the WRT54G). They are basically thumbing their noses at the Open-Source community...

[sakal]

I will be very happy if we can get speed as in TW.

Maybe if it helps i can run one repeater for ChuckVNC community

[B]

Unless they changed every line of code, (unlikely in the extreme), then the FSF could quite reasonably launch an action against them, (as they did with LinkSys and the WRT54G). They are basically thumbing their noses at the Open-Source community...

Maybe, maybe not. Absent a "clean room" implementation with no access to the previous open source version (which in my view would be the only way to do it legitimately), it would be kind of an elementary exercise to rewrite each routine in a slightly different way. I just don't know how much of such "open book" rewriting would constitute a successful evasion of copyright law. (And it's important to remember that the code isn't protected by the GPL so much as that it's protected by simple <b>copyright law</b>. Teamviewer has no more right to re-use and close UltraVNC code than they have right to re-use MS Word or Photoshop code. Unless they paid all the original and contributory developers of course.)

Secondly, I think it wouldn't be the FSF who would have to initiate any action, but rather the copyright holders. The last UltraVNC server I checked simply shows "Copyright 2009 UltraVNC". Without a complainant I don't think the FSF does (or can do) anything.

[ Edit: Downloaded readme actually shows "Copyright (C) 2002-2008 Ultr@VNC Team - All rights reserved" This is for the 1.0.8.2 source which curiously reads "Ultr@VNC 1.0.5 release" throughout. Other copyright notices include "// Copyright (C) 2002 Ultr@VNC Team Members. All Rights Reserved.
// Copyright (C) 2000-2002 Const Kaplinsky. All Rights Reserved.
// Copyright (C) 2002 RealVNC Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
// Copyright (C) 1999 AT&T Laboratories Cambridge. All Rights Reserved.
// " ]

Thirdly, for all we know they DID pay UltraVNC for a closed license. (Whether that's even possible considering the origin of the GPL code, through both AT&T/Olivetti and RealVNC, is another question.)

Fourthly, couldn't one simply decompile the relevant executables and compare against a similar binary decompile of UltraVNC and/or the UltraVNC source? Changing variable names would be easy (and expected) but if entire sections of code have the same syntax and substance, it couldn't be <b>too</b> difficult to identify, or so I would guess.

[Rat]

Yeah I meant "re-writing" in the sense of significant architectural changes, rather than simply renaming or re-arranging existing code.

Presumably, the license prevents UltraVNC from selling it or TeamViewer from closing it, and the copyright prevents TeamViewer from appropriating it.

As you rightly point out the most likely scenario would be for the FSF to be approached by a complainant, (ie. the copyright holder(s)), although if they thought there was a significant license infringement they could conceivably launch their own action, (after all the GPL is their license and part of their charter is to protect its integrity).

[B]

That's the weird thing -- as far as I understand, it's never about the GPL! Any perceived GPL "violation" by definition becomes a matter of copyright law. What I mean is, they don't have to protect the "integrity of the GPL" because it's not the license that's protecting the source code, at all! It's copyright law protecting the source code. The GPL is always an exception to copyright law, and MUST be followed to grant the re-user his privileges. Anyway, as far as I know.

Minor nit -- the license does NOT prevent UltraVNC from selling the software to anyone. It simply places conditions on the redistribution of that source or binary code. In my limited understanding, the GPL boils down to "whoever you give this program to inherits all the rights and obligations you had".


On a related note, I was checking some interesting discussions at the FFMpeg site -- they are remarkably strident about following up on people re-using their code and not fulfilling GPL obligations on redistributing derived products. Their "hall of shame" is at http://ffmpeg.org/shame.html


Urpp.... we've wandered very far off from the original poster. Sorry. sakal, if you want to run a public repeater you might PM user supercoe with the details, or just publish the location here yourself.

[Rat]

Well these days the FSF and gpl-violations.org work pretty closely together...