On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, John Summerfield wrote: > Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > 2) apparently, although the man page for "vncviewer" doesn't > > mention it, you can view to a given port number rather than a > > display number. so either of the following would work equally > > well: > > > > $ vncviewer 192.168.1.100:5 > > $ vncviewer 192.168.1.100:5905 > > > > although as long as there is that 1:1 mapping, there would seem to > > be little point using the port number since the display number > > would work just as well and is clearly shorter. > > You need to verify this with other VNC implementations (TightVNC is > fairly popular). If yoy are correct, you might also report it as a > bug, either it works incorrectly or it's documented incorrectly. with vncserver running at 5901, here's the results: $ vncviewer <remote>:1 works $ vncviewer <remote>:5901 works $ vncviewer <remote>::1 nope, "Connection refused" $ vncviewer <remote>::5901 works should i have expected that? there's nothing in the man page for vncviewer that remotely suggests a "::" variation. (this is all based on the stock f8 vnc packages -- no tightvnc tests yet.) if need be, i can bugzilla this as just a confusing bit of lack of documentation. rday p.s. maybe i'll just RTFS to see how the command-line args are being parsed. -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA Home page: http://crashcourse.ca Fedora Cookbook: http://crashcourse.ca/wiki/index.php/Fedora_Cookbook ========================================================================
