Pros of FreeRDP

• More comprehensive RDP protocol implementation, supporting a wider range of features
• Cross-platform support, including Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, and Android
• Active development with frequent updates and bug fixes

Cons of FreeRDP

• More complex codebase, potentially harder to contribute to or customize
• Primarily focused on client-side implementation, less emphasis on server functionality
• May require more system resources due to its extensive feature set

Code Comparison

xrdp

static int
xrdp_mm_process_login_response(struct xrdp_mm *self, struct stream *s)
{
    int rv;
    int code;
    char *reason;

    code = 0;
    rv = 0;
    stream_rd_u32(s, code);
    in_utf8_str(s, &reason);
    // ... (additional code)
}

FreeRDP

static BOOL freerdp_peer_activate(freerdp_peer* client)
{
    rdpSettings* settings = client->settings;
    rdpUpdate* update = client->update;

    if (!settings->ServerMode)
        return FALSE;

    // ... (additional code)
}

Pros of TigerVNC

• Better performance and lower latency for high-resolution displays
• More robust encryption and security features
• Wider platform support, including mobile devices

Cons of TigerVNC

• Requires more setup and configuration compared to xrdp
• Less integrated with Windows Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP)
• May consume more system resources, especially on older hardware

Code Comparison

TigerVNC (C++):

rfb::VNCServerST::VNCServerST(const char* name, rfb::SDesktop* desktop)
  : desktop(desktop), name(name), pointerClient(0),
    comparer(0), encoder(0), server(0), pb(0), clientManager(0)
{
  slog.debug("creating VNCServerST");
}

xrdp (C):

struct xrdp_listen *
xrdp_listen_create(void)
{
    struct xrdp_listen *self;
    self = (struct xrdp_listen *)g_malloc(sizeof(struct xrdp_listen), 1);
    self->listen_trans = trans_create(TRANS_MODE_TCP, 16, 16);
    return self;
}

Both projects use low-level programming languages for performance, but TigerVNC employs C++ for object-oriented design, while xrdp uses C for a more traditional systems programming approach.

Pros of libvncserver

• More versatile, supporting both server and client implementations
• Wider platform support, including mobile devices
• Extensive documentation and examples for easier integration

Cons of libvncserver

• Potentially higher resource usage due to its comprehensive feature set
• May require more setup and configuration for basic use cases
• Less focused on specific remote desktop protocols like RDP

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 */

libvncserver (C):

rfbBool
rfbSendFramebufferUpdate(rfbClientPtr cl, sraRegionPtr updateRegion)
{
    rfbFramebufferUpdateMsg fu;
    sraRectangleIterator* i;
    sraRect rect;
    int nUpdateRegionRects;

Both repositories use C for core functionality, but libvncserver offers a more modular approach with separate client and server implementations. xrdp focuses specifically on RDP protocol support, while libvncserver provides a broader VNC implementation that can be adapted for various use cases.

Pros of noVNC

• Browser-based, no client installation required
• Cross-platform compatibility (works on any device with a modern web browser)
• Easy to integrate into web applications

Cons of noVNC

• Generally slower performance compared to native RDP clients
• Limited support for advanced features like audio redirection or USB device sharing

Code Comparison

noVNC (JavaScript):

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

xrdp (C):

struct xrdp_session* session;
session = xrdp_session_create();
xrdp_session_init(session, client_info);
xrdp_session_connect(session);

Both projects aim to provide remote desktop solutions, but they use different approaches. noVNC focuses on browser-based access using HTML5 technologies, while xrdp implements the RDP protocol natively. The code snippets demonstrate the initialization process for each: noVNC creates a new RFB (Remote Framebuffer) object in JavaScript, while xrdp sets up a session structure in C.

Pros of RustDesk

• Cross-platform support (Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android)
• Self-hosted option for enhanced privacy and control
• Built with Rust, offering better performance and security

Cons of RustDesk

• Relatively new project with a smaller community
• Limited enterprise-level features compared to established solutions

Code Comparison

RustDesk (Rust):

#[tokio::main]
async fn main() -> Result<(), Box<dyn std::error::Error>> {
    let listener = TcpListener::bind("127.0.0.1:8080").await?;
    println!("Server listening on port 8080");
    // ... more code ...
}

XRDP (C):

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
    int pid;
    int error;
    struct list *session_list;
    // ... more code ...
}

Key Differences

• RustDesk is written in Rust, while XRDP is primarily written in C
• RustDesk offers a more modern, user-friendly interface
• XRDP is specifically designed for remote desktop protocol (RDP) on Linux, while RustDesk is a more versatile remote desktop solution

Use Cases

• XRDP: Ideal for Linux environments requiring RDP support
• RustDesk: Suitable for cross-platform remote access needs, especially for personal or small business use

Community and Support

• XRDP has a more established community and longer history
• RustDesk is gaining popularity rapidly, with active development and growing community support