<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<feed version="0.3" xmlns="http://purl.org/atom/ns#">
<title>Comments on article "TightVNC and VNC_VIA_CMD"</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://home.zyrianes.net/blog/Articles/149/"/>
<modified>2005-05-25T22:08:27Z</modified>


<entry>
<title>ludo on TightVNC and VNC_VIA_CMD</title>
<author>
<name>ludo</name>
</author>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://home.zyrianes.net/blog/Comments/20/"/>
<id>http://home.zyrianes.net/blog/Comments/20/</id>
<issued>2005-05-25T22:08:27Z</issued>
<modified>2005-05-25T22:08:27Z</modified>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped">
&lt;p&gt;I push the limit, I didn't feel good switching to the VPN installation and management.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With this solution I didn't need a VPN server on the host having the vnc server, just ssh access to the gateway :-)&lt;/p&gt;

</content>
</entry>

<entry>
<title>Jkx on TightVNC and VNC_VIA_CMD</title>
<author>
<name>Jkx</name>
</author>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://home.zyrianes.net/blog/Comments/17/"/>
<id>http://home.zyrianes.net/blog/Comments/17/</id>
<issued>2005-05-18T10:50:51Z</issued>
<modified>2005-05-18T10:50:51Z</modified>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped">
Hum .. perhaps it's time to switch to a real VPN solution not a tcp tunneling ? The best part is that you will have some better performance without the gateway overhead.
</content>
</entry>


</feed>