FreeS/WAN vs RealVNC

>>> At the last Westside meeting I was introduced to FreeS/WAN and it
>>> looked like a pretty cool VNC server. So I finally go to play with it
>>> and discover that what yum installed was RealVNC from the original
>>> team at AT&T labs in the UK. It also looks pretty cool and comes with
>>> free Win9x clients which could be a real advantage.
>>> So as anybody tried them both? Any advice on which to learn first?
>>
>>
>> I was under the impression that FreeS/WAN was a VPN protocol and VNC
>> is a remote desktop viewer (similar to PC Anywhere). So you would
>> setup FreeS/WAN to allow you remote access to your network and then
>> run VNC to connect to a specific machine within that network.
>
>
> Yep. I clearly misunderstood what a VNC connection does. It is much more
> like a graphical version of telnet than it is like FreeS/WAN. You don't
> need a VPN to use VNC securely, however. It turns out it will run over SSH.

The advantage of using FreeS/WAN is that you can access your whole network as if
you were at it or link two remote sites together over the Net as if they were
one network.