Vinagre sends frozen image to rdesktop in Jaunty 9.04
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ubuntu |
New
|
Undecided
|
Unassigned |
Bug Description
In Jaunty, the image being sent to the remote desktop via either Vinagre or tightvncserver, freezes up. It appears that the problem lies with the server side, and not the remote side. Because, the remote computer (Ubuntu 8.10) can receive rdesktop images just fine from other computers.
Detail: Dell Precision M6400 laptop, with Jaunty 9.04. Attempting to use it as a server supplying images to a remote desktop. I have tried using Vinagre as well as tightvncserver, but the same problem arises regardless of which I use: the remote desktop can initiate a connection to my laptop, request permission, and achieve a connection. And the image on my laptop's screen immediately appears on the remote desktop's monitor-- as it should. But that initial image which gets transmitted, gets immediately fixed on the remote moniter and does not continue to update as the image on my laptop changes. Whatever the first image was, that is all that gets transmitted.
One odd thing is that if I move the cursor on my laptop screen, the remove desktop moniter will see the cursor moving around. But if I open and close any applications, or anything I do on my laptop screen, nothing of that is visible to the remote desktop except that the cursor itself is moving.
My laptop can work just fine as the remote desktop and recieve images from the desktop of any other computer. But any other computer which tries to connect as the remote desktop to my laptop, will get only one fixed image.
The bug I have reported here above is not a duplicate of bug #353126. That bug involves a freeze during the use of compiz. But I do not have compiz, and never have. So this is the main point-- that for me, this freeze is occuring without compiz, and it therefore has nothing at all to do with compiz or beryl or any other special effects. So under such circumstances, how can one possibly call the above a "duplicate" of bug #353126?