Weird, looking at the manifest, I see it asks for permission for "socket": [ "tcp-connect::" ], but when I try to use that in my own app, I get the message "socket" permissions are only allowed for packaged apps.
I am quite frustrated by the confusing mix of extensions vs "legacy" apps vs "hosted" apps vs the newfangled "packaged" apps. The chrome web store is extremely confusing and the documentation is all over the place.
I use Teamviewer all the time and find it very useful. I need to spend a little time to look at how the connections are made though—I'm not confident that it's secure since you have to enter an ID and password that are (I'm assuming) authenticated by a different machine controlled by Teamviewer. I wonder if the connection is sent through their computers (to get around router issues) and therefore susceptible to capturing passwords, etc. or if the connection is handed off to the two machines after the ID / password is handled.
This really works very well. Its much faster and stable than thinvnc I was using on my chromebook. My only issue would be that I have to scroll a lot. I wish I could resize as the computer I'm connecting to has a much higher resolution (I think is causing the issue)
This kind of thing could be interesting. I've often bemoaned the use of HTML/Javascript as a "poor man's X server" and argued that a browser is not necessarily the best way to remote out a UI. VNC, on the other hand, is designed for pushing user interfaces out remotely, so integrating the two could be a very natural step.
What'll be interesting to see, is if we can get to a point where there's a very natural handoff mechanism between the browser and VNC. Will there be, for example, urls like:
vnc://myhost.com/some_remote_desktop
that will seamlessly start a VNC viewer? If so, that starts to become really cool.
Of course, I freely admit that I don't know well VNC works over public Internet / WAN links. That was always one of the arguments against using X, that the latency of WANs / the public Internet, screwed with it and made it fairly unusable. Not sure if VNC is better in this regard or not.
Why are we still messing around with ancient technology like VNC? Its terrible. It just samples screen output; it does not intelligently understand the underlying GUI so it can't really cache anything or accelerate anything.
If we're going to replace HTML as a "poor man's interface" then we need to do better than VNC. Perhaps NX or RDP.
Still, I'd argue that HTML as a poor man's interface is perfect. I could sit down a write a HTML-based control panel that uses next to no resources. With VNC or whatever, now I need X running on my server, a GUI window manager running, and need to write a desktop app. This isn't progress.
I used to use VNC viewer with ssh tunneling, I wonder if there is a way to do that with this extension...
Switched to NX, but didn't set up the web viewer yet, so this would be an easy way to work on the road if could do ssh tunnel.
And unlike Chicken of the VNC, this one actually supports the scrollwheel! (maybe there's some way to get Chicken of the VNC to support the scrollwheel but I didn't find it. I did find "Chicken", a fork of "Chicken of the VNC". It's got various connection bugs.)
No luck with copy and paste from Chrome OSX to Ubuntu 12 but maybe I'm doing it wrong
Google captures greater profits and influence by flogging people its DRM-infested ChromeOS machines for cheap, claiming they are hyper secure.
On the face of it, that may be right, but privacy and independence are lost. Victim buyers discover they can't do anything without either paying more money or being online (ie. under surveillance from the GooglePlex).
You don't have to cycle between 2 application platforms: the host OS and your browser. If you already use a lot of web apps this is a real frustration. You essentially are running 2 OSes with separate conventions and context switching between those is not pleasant. This is why things like Fluid exist.
I hacked together an open source VNC viewer which can run on the ARM Chromebooks[0] earlier this year. Source code at [1]. It't far from perfect but it did what I needed it to do.
1. Download VNC Viewer for Google Chrome to a Windows, Mac OS X, UNIX, or Linux computer, or to a Chromebook or Chromebox with an Intel processor (support for ARM processors coming soon).
I would like to add this to Chrome just in case I may use it but Chrome already has a 400MB memory footprint on my laptop. So I'll stick to teamviewer...but nice to know this is available if need be.
VNC servers can run on Linux, Windows, OS X. This is more similar to running VNC client as a native binary for your OS, except this lets you do it in Chrome.
The biggest benefit I can tell is if you can run this on Chrome OS now. That, and pushing the technology forward.
[+] [-] kzahel|13 years ago|reply
I am quite frustrated by the confusing mix of extensions vs "legacy" apps vs "hosted" apps vs the newfangled "packaged" apps. The chrome web store is extremely confusing and the documentation is all over the place.
[+] [-] est|13 years ago|reply
Packaged app: Can be used offline with permissions like a native local app. Think of IPA or APK files.
[+] [-] Andrex|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dm2|13 years ago|reply
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chrome-remote-desk...
[+] [-] ithkuil|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] donniezazen|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] doppenhe|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patrickk|13 years ago|reply
I've found it excellent. Free for non-commercial use.
[+] [-] brittohalloran|13 years ago|reply
Also, if you're using it for remote presentations, all you do is email a link and they can see your screen directly in the browser.
[+] [-] backwardm|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] angryasian|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mindcrime|13 years ago|reply
What'll be interesting to see, is if we can get to a point where there's a very natural handoff mechanism between the browser and VNC. Will there be, for example, urls like:
vnc://myhost.com/some_remote_desktop
that will seamlessly start a VNC viewer? If so, that starts to become really cool.
Of course, I freely admit that I don't know well VNC works over public Internet / WAN links. That was always one of the arguments against using X, that the latency of WANs / the public Internet, screwed with it and made it fairly unusable. Not sure if VNC is better in this regard or not.
[+] [-] drzaiusapelord|13 years ago|reply
If we're going to replace HTML as a "poor man's interface" then we need to do better than VNC. Perhaps NX or RDP.
Still, I'd argue that HTML as a poor man's interface is perfect. I could sit down a write a HTML-based control panel that uses next to no resources. With VNC or whatever, now I need X running on my server, a GUI window manager running, and need to write a desktop app. This isn't progress.
[+] [-] saljam|13 years ago|reply
http://kanaka.github.com/noVNC/
[+] [-] neuroguy|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gnud|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] giis|13 years ago|reply
Too bad, seems like it won't work with linux system.
[+] [-] maethorechannen|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greggman|13 years ago|reply
And unlike Chicken of the VNC, this one actually supports the scrollwheel! (maybe there's some way to get Chicken of the VNC to support the scrollwheel but I didn't find it. I did find "Chicken", a fork of "Chicken of the VNC". It's got various connection bugs.)
No luck with copy and paste from Chrome OSX to Ubuntu 12 but maybe I'm doing it wrong
[+] [-] achy|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] contingencies|13 years ago|reply
On the face of it, that may be right, but privacy and independence are lost. Victim buyers discover they can't do anything without either paying more money or being online (ie. under surveillance from the GooglePlex).
[+] [-] balac|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MatthewPhillips|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Sambdala|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saljam|13 years ago|reply
[0] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/vnc-viewer/ekheahf...
[1] https://bitbucket.org/saljam/vnc
[+] [-] haxxorfreak|13 years ago|reply
1. Download VNC Viewer for Google Chrome to a Windows, Mac OS X, UNIX, or Linux computer, or to a Chromebook or Chromebox with an Intel processor (support for ARM processors coming soon).
[+] [-] Yhippa|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fiatjaf|13 years ago|reply
Not supported on Mint, apparently.
[+] [-] maethorechannen|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] angryasian|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iblaine|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kellster|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shurcooL|13 years ago|reply
The biggest benefit I can tell is if you can run this on Chrome OS now. That, and pushing the technology forward.
[+] [-] ashwinaj|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aquaphile|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ImprovedSilence|13 years ago|reply