uvnc2me ?

[s|b]

Is anyone using uvnc2me?

<http://www.uvnc.com/products/59-uvnc2me/106-uvnc2me.html>

I used UltraVNC in the past, but then switched to TeamViewer (much
easier to set up). And now I stumble upon uvnc2me. It's supposed to be a
free alternative for LogMeIn and I'm curious if anyone is using it?

--
s|b

[Mr. Man-wai Chang]

On 13/11/2016 10:53 PM, s|b wrote:
> ...And now I stumble upon uvnc2me. It's supposed to be a

> free alternative for LogMeIn and I'm curious if anyone is using it?

Does it involve a third-party person or server?

The original VNC is peer-to-peer, involving no middle-person nor
middle-server. :)

[Mr. Man-wai Chang]

On 13/11/2016 10:55 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> The original VNC is peer-to-peer, involving no middle-person nor
> middle-server. :)

Wait a minute... what if it has a hidden mode that copies your screen to
another computer? Have you ever checked it? :)

[Rod]

In article <e8rd2s...@mid.individual.net>, m...@privacy.invalid
says...

I use another UVNC for access, UVNC SC is more configurable than
uvnc2me. It doesn't require an intermediate server. You build a file to
send to the remote, which is a mini UVNC server, and then you run the
UVNC viewer on your computer in listen mode. The remote does not need to
[ort forward, but your computer must forward the listening port. There
are add-ons for encryption also. I use it as a help desk for friends and
relatives, and it works very well.

[s|b]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 10:43:12 -0600, Rod wrote:

> I use another UVNC for access, UVNC SC is more configurable than
> uvnc2me. It doesn't require an intermediate server. You build a file to
> send to the remote, which is a mini UVNC server, and then you run the
> UVNC viewer on your computer in listen mode. The remote does not need to
> [ort forward, but your computer must forward the listening port. There
> are add-ons for encryption also. I use it as a help desk for friends and
> relatives, and it works very well.

That's the way I used UltraVNC in the past. I had to change the remote
part every time my IP changed. But /it/ is more configurable.

Anyway, looks like I'll keep on using TV since it has more options than
uvnc2me...

--
s|b

[VanguardLH]

Couldn't you use a DDNS (Dynamic DNS) service, like OpenDNS or NoIP?
Instead of having to remember whatever is the current IP address for the
remote host, you just remember the one hostname for it. If you don't
have a static IP address at the remote, you can run their DNS updater
client on the remote host. That updates your DDNS account with the
current IP address of the remote host. An update is sent every 28 days
(helps to keep-alive a free DDNS account) or whenever the IP address
changes on the client's host or when you do it manually for some reason.

That way, you don't have to remember IP addresses or worry about when
they change. Just use the same hostname, like sbremote-1, for that
remote host's name which is always the same hostname.

Logmein went to a payware service. No free account. Teamviewer allows
a free account only for personal use. mikogo is free whether for
personal or business use. They all work by having their client make an
outbound connection to their server to query if there is a pending
request to connect to that host. That eliminates problems with
firewalls which usually block unsolicited inbound connections. Since
the client connection is outbound via HTTP[S], the firewall lets that
pass without interference or prompting. The two endpoints use the
server only to find each other after which the server isn't involved.
The two endpoints connect to each other after the handshake. Traffic
coming into the remote host is over the same HTTP[S] connection that was
originally an outbound connection so the firewall is still not in the
way. I believe their software encrypts the traffic; else, every hop
between the endpoints in the route between them could sniff the traffic.
They can still see what are the endpoints but not the content of the
traffic.

I used Logmein for awhile but quit when they yanked the free accounts.
Teamviewer is nice but only for personal use. mikogo is free for any
use with limitations, like only 2 endpoints involved in the session (no
sharing with multiple participants). With VNC or its variants, I had to
configure the client and server, punch a hole in the software firewall
on the remote host and also in the firewall in the remote host's router
along with defining port forwarding in the router. When I did that way
back is when I learned of using DDNS so I didn't have to worry about a
changing IP address or remember what it was at that time.

When I visited the URL you gave for uvnc2me (or for uvnc.com), that site
doesn't want me to visit there while protected from ads or tracking. It
bitches that I have an adblocker and shoves an interstitial bitch page
at me with a countdown timer that makes me wait for 10 seconds before it
returns to the original page. What assholes. Yep, I will continue
using an adblocker (uBlock Origin + uMatrix) and usually when a page
refuses to provide its content because it detect adblocking is when I
leave that site. It's their choice to block content if they sense that
I'm using an adblocker. It's my choice not to visit their ad polluted
or tracking enabled site.

You never mentioned what OS is on the endpoint hosts. The web access
method doesn't care on the local end; however, you need to run their
client on the remote host. Mikogo only supports Windows (7 and up).
Looks like Windows (7+) and OS/x (10.7+) for Logmein. Teamviewer lists
Windows, Mac, Linux, ChromeOS, Android, and iOS. According to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraVNC, UVNC (UltraVNC) only supports
Windows. I wasn't going to bother with UVNC's site and their bitching
about me using an adblocker. I guess if I were to reconsider using a
VNC variant again, I'd want one where they had a server (listening
process) that could run on Windows, Linux (which includes OS/X since
that's Linux). Android and iOS would be nice but I have yet needed to
remotely troubleshoot or use a smartphone or tablet. Since UltraVNC is
limited to the Windows platform, wouldn't their uvnc2me product also be
limited to only Windows?

You can see a list of remote desktop software at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_remote_desktop_software#Operating_system_support

That should help in deciding what to use for what OS platforms you want
to support.

[al]

Brosix (the free "Personal" version) is also a very simple remote
control solution. Windows, Linux, Mac, and Android versions, It's
primarily an instant messaging program with several other built in
features. https://www.brosix.com/features/

P.S. Congrats to Vanguard. One of his few responses I actually
appreciated AND understood!

[Rod]

UVNC SC is good for helpdesk type connections. You don't need any port
forwarding for the person you are helping. I set up my own because I was
using Teamviewer to much and getting warnings about being used for
commercial use even though it was private. The file I send to remotes is
only 280kb, and does not require installation. After being run by the
remote nothing remains other than the exe file. Sounds to me like you are
better off using TV.

[Diesel]

"s|b" <m...@privacy.invalid> news:e8rd2s...@mid.individual.net

It works reasonably well. And, you can run your own access server if
you want; as they provide a copy. The access server lets you avoid port
forwarding. All you have to do is get the person to run a single exe
file and provide you a little bit of information. The access server
will put you two in touch.

I tend to use Tigervnc more often though, because client/server exists
for Windows and my Linux machines, doesn't use an access server, and
works well for me.

http://tigervnc.org/

YMMV.

--
Make yourself sheep and the wolves will eat you.
Benjamin Franklin

[p-0''0-h the cat (coder)]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 13:52:32 -0600, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> wrote:

>I wasn't going to bother with UVNC's site and their bitching
>about me using an adblocker.

I'm amazed that the freeware Gestapo haven't mentioned this. Why is this
lot getting a free pass?

Is Shadow getting a backhander from this lot? He should ask them. I
can't guarantee anything though.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian, the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

[Shadow]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 10:20:22 +0000, "p-0''0-h the cat (coder)"
<super...@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 13:52:32 -0600, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> wrote:
>
>>I wasn't going to bother with UVNC's site and their bitching
>>about me using an adblocker.
>
>I'm amazed that the freeware Gestapo haven't mentioned this. Why is this
>lot getting a free pass?
>
>Is Shadow getting a backhander from this lot?

Of course I am.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

[s|b]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 16:39:45 -0600, Rod wrote:

> UVNC SC is good for helpdesk type connections. You don't need any port
> forwarding for the person you are helping. I set up my own because I was
> using Teamviewer to much and getting warnings about being used for
> commercial use even though it was private. The file I send to remotes is
> only 280kb, and does not require installation. After being run by the
> remote nothing remains other than the exe file. Sounds to me like you are
> better off using TV.

I guess so too. The only downside for me was when I got a warning from
TV after being connected a certain amount of time.

--
s|b

[s|b]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 13:52:32 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:

> Couldn't you use a DDNS (Dynamic DNS) service, like OpenDNS or NoIP?

I could; I have a router which supports that stuff. But I don't want to
register with yet another website. And I didn't ask for that. I asked if
anyone was using uvnc2me.

> Logmein went to a payware service. No free account. Teamviewer allows
> a free account only for personal use.

I'm aware of that.

> They all work by having their client make an
> outbound connection to their server to query if there is a pending
> request to connect to that host. That eliminates problems with
> firewalls which usually block unsolicited inbound connections.

I know.

> When I visited the URL you gave for uvnc2me (or for uvnc.com), that site
> doesn't want me to visit there while protected from ads or tracking. It
> bitches that I have an adblocker and shoves an interstitial bitch page
> at me with a countdown timer that makes me wait for 10 seconds before it
> returns to the original page. What assholes. Yep, I will continue
> using an adblocker (uBlock Origin + uMatrix) and usually when a page
> refuses to provide its content because it detect adblocking is when I
> leave that site. It's their choice to block content if they sense that
> I'm using an adblocker. It's my choice not to visit their ad polluted
> or tracking enabled site.

I really don't care about that. The programmer provides the program for
free, but keeping up a website costs money, even if it is to pay the
electricity of the server. To make up for that he allows one ad and
guess what it's for? TeamViewer.

You can easily turn off your adblocker. Anyway, that's not what my
posting was about. I asked of anyone was using uvnc2me. You obviously
aren't, but you did grab the opportunity to post a lengthy monologue
that doesn't answer my question.

> You never mentioned what OS is on the endpoint hosts.

As if you care; you don't even use the program!

> You can see a list of remote desktop software at:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_remote_desktop_software#Operating_system_support
>
> That should help in deciding what to use for what OS platforms you want
> to support.

Yeah, you need to read that OP again:

_Is anyone using uvnc2me?_

'No.' (or no posting at all) would have sufficed. You get an A for
effort though.

--
s|b

[s|b]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 16:01:43 -0500, al wrote:

> P.S. Congrats to Vanguard. One of his few responses I actually
> appreciated AND understood!

Well, at least somebody got something out of it, because I didn't.

--
s|b

[VanguardLH]

s|b wrote:

> Yeah, you need to read that OP again:
>
> _Is anyone using uvnc2me?_
>
> 'No.' (or no posting at all) would have sufficed. You get an A for
> effort though.

Rod hasn't used uvnc2me, either, or al. Apparently using UVNC or
variants of VNC is not apropro to your severely restricted inquiry, even
for TeamViewer (and its ilk) that *YOU* mentioned. Did Diesel give any
info that would not have you reply "I'm already aware of that" and "I
know"? Even he mentioned TigerVNC which is not what you asked about.

Wander over to the UVNC forums (http://www.uvnc.com/forum.html or
https://forum.ultravnc.net/). You're not getting the satisfaction you
seek here. You'll have to start a new discussion at the 1st forum URL
on uvnc2me. A search there found nothing already posted about it. The
2nd forum URL has some uvnc2me posts. Because there are some forum
posts about uvnc2me, the answer to your question is "Yes, anyone is
using it". So what did you learn about uvnc2me by knowing someone uses
it?

For your type of question, rarely is the poster merely starting a
"Yes/No" voting thread which typically has little or no value. You
really wanted respondents to only say Yes or No? Of what value would
that be to you? Are you with Nielsen taking a poll on the number of
users of the product? Contact UltraVNC to inquire on the number of
uvnc2me downloads (uv...@skynet.be). Even if a respondent only said
"Yes" to answer only your question, that's not saying they use uvnc2me.
They're answering your question: Is *_anyone_* using uvnc2me?