Pros of FreeRDP

• Native RDP client implementation with broader protocol support
• Cross-platform compatibility (Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android)
• More active development and frequent updates

Cons of FreeRDP

• Requires client-side installation and configuration
• Limited web-based access options
• Steeper learning curve for end-users

Code Comparison

FreeRDP (client-side connection):

freerdp_connect(instance);

Guacamole Server (server-side connection handling):

guac_client_plugin_handle_connection(client, socket);

Summary

FreeRDP is a comprehensive RDP client implementation offering native support across multiple platforms, while Guacamole Server focuses on providing remote desktop access through web browsers. FreeRDP excels in protocol support and performance but requires client-side installation. Guacamole Server offers easier deployment and management through its web-based approach but may have limitations in advanced RDP features. The choice between the two depends on specific use cases, deployment requirements, and user preferences.

Pros of noVNC

• Pure HTML5/JavaScript implementation, requiring no plugins or additional software on the client-side
• Lightweight and easily embeddable in web applications
• Supports a wide range of browsers and devices

Cons of noVNC

• Limited protocol support (primarily VNC)
• May have higher latency compared to native clients
• Lacks some advanced features found in Guacamole, such as file transfer and printing

Code Comparison

noVNC (JavaScript):

var rfb = new RFB(document.getElementById('noVNC_canvas'), 'ws://example.com:port');
rfb.scaleViewport = true;
rfb.resizeSession = true;

Guacamole Server (C):

guac_client* client = guac_client_alloc();
guac_client_load_plugin(client, "libguac-client-vnc.so");
guac_client_init(client, GUAC_VNC_DEFAULT_ARGS);

Both projects aim to provide remote access solutions, but noVNC focuses on VNC protocol support in a browser-based environment, while Guacamole Server offers a more comprehensive remote desktop gateway with support for multiple protocols and advanced features.

Pros of xrdp

• Native RDP protocol support, allowing direct connections from Windows Remote Desktop clients
• Generally lower latency and better performance for LAN connections
• Easier integration with existing Windows-based remote desktop infrastructure

Cons of xrdp

• Limited cross-platform support compared to Guacamole's browser-based approach
• Less flexibility in terms of supported protocols (primarily focused on RDP)
• May require more complex firewall configurations for remote access

Code Comparison

xrdp (C):

static int
xrdp_mm_process_login_response(struct xrdp_mm *self, struct stream *s)
{
    int ok;
    int display;
    char text[256];

    in_uint32_be(s, ok);
    in_uint32_be(s, display);
    in_uint8s(s, 4); /* pad */

Guacamole (C):

int guac_client_handle_instruction(guac_client* client, guac_instruction* instruction) {

    /* Call handler, if defined */
    if (client->handle_instruction != NULL)
        return client->handle_instruction(client, instruction);

    /* Otherwise, ignore */
    return 0;
}

Both projects use C for their core implementations, but xrdp focuses on RDP-specific functionality, while Guacamole provides a more abstract approach to handle various remote desktop protocols.

Pros of TigerVNC

• Native VNC implementation with better performance for direct connections
• Supports a wider range of platforms, including Windows and macOS
• More lightweight and easier to set up for simple remote desktop scenarios

Cons of TigerVNC

• Lacks built-in web-based access without additional software
• Does not provide the same level of security features and encryption as Guacamole
• Limited support for protocols other than VNC

Code Comparison

TigerVNC (C++):

rfb::VNCServerST::VNCServerST(const char* name, rfb::SDesktop* desktop)
  : desktop(desktop), name(name), clients(&updateScheduler),
    pointerClient(0), comparer(0), encoder(0), encodeManager(0),
    network(0), auth(0), lastConnectionTime(0), disableclients(false)
{
  srand(time(0));
}

Guacamole Server (C):

guac_client* guac_client_alloc() {
    guac_client* client = calloc(1, sizeof(guac_client));
    if (client == NULL)
        return NULL;

    client->state = GUAC_CLIENT_RUNNING;
    return client;
}

The code snippets show different approaches: TigerVNC focuses on VNC-specific implementation, while Guacamole Server provides a more abstract client allocation, supporting multiple protocols.

Pros of libvncserver

• Lightweight and focused solely on VNC protocol implementation
• Longer development history and wider adoption in various projects
• More flexible for integration into custom applications

Cons of libvncserver

• Limited to VNC protocol support only
• Lacks built-in web-based client interface
• Requires additional components for a complete remote access solution

Code Comparison

libvncserver:

rfbScreenInfoPtr screen = rfbGetScreen(&argc, argv, width, height, 8, 3, bpp);
screen->frameBuffer = (char*)malloc(width * height * bpp);
rfbInitServer(screen);
rfbRunEventLoop(screen, -1, FALSE);

guacamole-server:

guac_client* client = guac_client_alloc();
guac_client_init(client, GUAC_VNC_CLIENT_ID, argc, argv);
guac_client_plugin_handle* plugin = guac_client_plugin_open(GUAC_VNC_LIBRARY);
guac_client_plugin_init_client(plugin, client, argc, argv);

Summary

While libvncserver focuses on providing a lightweight VNC implementation, guacamole-server offers a more comprehensive remote access solution with support for multiple protocols and a web-based interface. libvncserver is better suited for projects requiring direct VNC integration, while guacamole-server is ideal for building full-featured remote access applications with broader protocol support.

Pros of RustDesk

• Written in Rust, offering better performance and memory safety
• Standalone application, easier to set up and use without additional server components
• Cross-platform support for Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, and Android

Cons of RustDesk

• Newer project with potentially less mature codebase and fewer features
• Limited enterprise-level features compared to Guacamole's extensive protocol support
• Smaller community and ecosystem around the project

Code Comparison

RustDesk (Rust):

let mut stream = TcpStream::connect(addr).await?;
stream.set_nodelay(true)?;
let mut msg_out = Message::new();
msg_out.set_login_request(lr);
send_message(&mut stream, msg_out).await?;

Guacamole Server (C):

guac_client* client = guac_client_alloc();
client->socket = socket;
client->state = GUAC_CLIENT_RUNNING;
guac_client_plugin_init(client, argc, argv);
guac_client_start(client);

Both projects aim to provide remote desktop functionality, but RustDesk focuses on being a standalone application with modern language benefits, while Guacamole Server offers a more comprehensive, server-based solution with broader protocol support. RustDesk may be easier for individual users, while Guacamole Server caters to enterprise environments with its extensibility and integration capabilities.