I am just a casual reader on this list so I could be entirly wrong about
all this.
I've read the thread that you started last spring, and I've been following
this one, and I sympathize with you on the problems with the acceleration
in X (it's down right unusable IMHO) but what I'm missing is what
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, J. Imlay wrote:
I am just a casual reader on this list so I could be entirly wrong about
all this.
I've read the thread that you started last spring, and I've been following
this one, and I sympathize with you on the problems with the acceleration
in X (it's down right
On Sat, 2 Nov 2002, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
Speaking as someone in the outer circle (I'm on the private lists, but
don't get to change the code) I think that the problem is that none one will
commit a patch that they don't understand.
Hi Andrew,
So those who send patches should expect
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 09:09:25AM +, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, J. Imlay wrote:
I am just a casual reader on this list so I could be entirly wrong about
all this.
I've read the thread that you started last spring, and I've been following
this one, and I
On Sat, 2 Nov 2002, Stephen Davies wrote:
On Sat, 2 Nov 2002, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
Speaking as someone in the outer circle (I'm on the private lists, but
don't get to change the code) I think that the problem is that none one will
commit a patch that they don't understand.
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 10:31:10AM +, Stephen Davies wrote:
On Sat, 2 Nov 2002, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
Speaking as someone in the outer circle (I'm on the private lists, but
don't get to change the code) I think that the problem is that none one will
commit a patch that they
At 2002\11\01 23:01 -0800 Friday, Michael Toomim wrote:
At 2002\11\02 17:22 +1300 Saturday, Craig Carey wrote:
Correction: dx' = k1 * * (+1 if dx 0 else -1)
dx' = k2 * dx
[dx is a C int, dx' is real that is added to a real sum and then
later converted into a
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 11:58:31PM -0800, J. Imlay wrote:
I am just a casual reader on this list so I could be entirly wrong about
all this.
I've read the thread that you started last spring, and I've been following
this one, and I sympathize with you on the problems with the acceleration
in X
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 10:31:10AM +, Stephen Davies wrote:
So those who send patches should expect some feedback or questions as to
our code.
I submitted a tdfx driver patch on 7th Oct:
Your submission to [EMAIL PROTECTED] has been assigned the
sequence number A.1297.
I would have
Craig Carey wrote:
Here are some arguments having considerations of deceleration appear in
this thread:
Ok, let me rephrase. I'm not saying that what you're saying is
irrelevant -- I agree that it needs to be discussed. I was just
pointing out that we are talking about two separate things:
J. Imlay wrote:
I am just a casual reader on this list so I could be entirly wrong about
all this.
I've read the thread that you started last spring, and I've been following
this one, and I sympathize with you on the problems with the acceleration
in X (it's down right unusable IMHO) but what
J. Imlay wrote:
But lambasting people for commenting there opinions on this matter as
being off topic (even if they are) doesn't get any of us anywhere.
Wow. I didn't think I was lambasting Craig.
Craig, I sincerely apologize if I offended you. I *really* didn't mean
it to come off that
David Dawes wrote:
I think the problem in this particular case is lack of agreement about
the nature of the pointer accleration problem and/or its solution. If
those interested in solving the problem can discuss it here and come to
some agreement on what the true nature of the problem is, and
Michael Toomim [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The issue disappeared from the mailing list, but I had some discussion
offline with Joe Krahn about it after the mailing list posts that you
saw. During that discussion, I communicated with the woman who
researched mouse acceleration algorithms at
Here's what I'm trying to get at: I think that the constant multiplier
should be settable with xset, instead of requiring one to modify the
Resolution option in XF86Config.
[...]
This setup works really well for me! The only problem is that it was a
bitch to figure out the right values
Craig Carey wrote:
The XFree86 mouse deceleration function gets dx,dy integers that are
small integers in between -1 and +1 quite often. Whatever the function
(formula) was, it could be replaced with these two without much change:
dx' = k1 * dx * (+1 if dx 0 else -1)
dx' = k2 * dx
At 11:49 AM 11/2/2002 -0500, you wrote:
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 10:31:10AM +, Stephen Davies wrote:
So those who send patches should expect some feedback or questions as to
our code.
I submitted a tdfx driver patch on 7th Oct:
Your submission to [EMAIL PROTECTED] has been assigned the
J. Imlay wrote:
But lambasting people for commenting there opinions on this matter as
being off topic (even if they are) doesn't get any of us anywhere.
Wow. I didn't think I was lambasting Craig.
Craig, I sincerely apologize if I offended you. I *really* didn't mean
it to come off that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You keep saying that the resolution can't be changed without editing the
XF86Config file, but the XFree86-Misc extension has made it possible for
years to change that setting on the fly. It's just a matter of having
a client to interface to that extension and there are
Craig Carey wrote:
The XFree86 mouse deceleration function gets dx,dy integers that are
small integers in between -1 and +1 quite often. Whatever the function
(formula) was, it could be replaced with these two without much change:
dx' = k1 * dx * (+1 if dx 0 else -1)
dx' = k2 * dx
20 matches
Mail list logo
