On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 14:42 -0400, Jason Rogers wrote:
Ken,
Thanks. I just read your two emails. I have been in a meeting for most of the day.
I appreciate your diligence, even though I didn't get to hop onto IRC. I will check out the configuration.
Again, thanks a lot for your help.
You are quite welcome, it turned out to be easier than I expected.
I already mentioned this to you on IRC but I want to go ahead and say it here for the benefit of anyone else reading this who would like to make use of tightvnc on box2 for their service(s):
Although the resource cost of tightvnc is fairly low I would like to suggest that no one plan to use it on a permanent basis. It's great for debugging problems that only appear on the server or in emergencies but it effectively represent another Squeak process that could be providing another service to the Squeak community. That's not counting the bandwidth usage.
Admittedly we have plenty of resources now and I mention this more for the long term than as a problem in the near future. More and more services are appearing and some of them are moving to box2 and I expect many more will in the future.
Ken