On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:30:51 +0100
Pierre Ossman wrote:
>
> How do local equivalents behave? How does Windows or RandR respond to
> an invalid change request? I haven't seen much more than "sod off" in
> the way of helpfulness from those systems either. The only addition
> might be that they can
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 19:13:27 -0500
DRC wrote:
>
> Ultimately, I want to modify TigerVNC such that it does not use buffered
> JPEG compression at all (but rather compresses straight from the Xvnc
> framebuffer, like TurboVNC does.) That would have rendered this issue
> moot.
I don't follow. Thi
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 05:22:10AM -0500, DRC wrote:
> Am I the only one that thinks this is nasty and a big turn-off to
> potential developers? I mean, I understand why it is done this way --
> so that Linux distributions can build VNC against the same X11 codebase
> as the regular X server, but
Am I the only one that thinks this is nasty and a big turn-off to
potential developers? I mean, I understand why it is done this way --
so that Linux distributions can build VNC against the same X11 codebase
as the regular X server, but it seems like we need to support some
"default" version of
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:55:45 +0100
Peter Rosin wrote:
>
> However, I still think 16 bits to be too little to deliver a useful
> error response for something as complex as this and I wish you a happy
> time telling users to read the manual of the server they are connecting
> to when the client ge
Am I the only one that thinks this is nasty and a big turn-off to
potential developers? I mean, I understand why it is done this way --
so that Linux distributions can build VNC against the same X11 codebase
as the regular X server, but it seems like we need to support some
"default" version of Xo
Den 2009-03-13 13:01 skrev Pierre Ossman:
> Hi,
>
> We've been working on client initiated screen size changes and need to
> extend the protocol to do that.
>
> In order to minimise the number of extensions, we'd also like to
> accommodate multi-head configurations with this new protocol.
>
> So
Den 2009-03-16 18:15 skrev Pierre Ossman:
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:54:20 +0100
> Peter Rosin wrote:
>
>> Den 2009-03-16 15:00 skrev Pierre Ossman:
>>> Annoying. Do they also rely on putting the conversion requirements on
>>> the client?
>> Yes. If a client claims support for WMVi, it has to suppor
Den 2009-03-16 11:45 skrev Pierre Ossman:
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:44:07 +0100
> Peter Rosin wrote:
>
>> Hi Pierre!
>>
>> There is also the WMVi pseudo-encoding (0x574d5669, or "WMVi" in FourCC)
>> to consider. A problem with this new proposal is that *both* WMVi and
>> this multihead scheme are "
Den 2009-03-16 15:00 skrev Pierre Ossman:
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:29:38 +0100
> Peter Rosin wrote:
>
>> Den 2009-03-16 11:45 skrev Pierre Ossman:
>>> That would be very against the RFB mentality, yes. But the wiki entry
>>> you pointed to suggests that these encodings are just used for
>>> "offli
cd tigervnc/unix/
git clone git://git.freedesktop.org/git/xorg/xserver xorg
cd xorg
git checkout origin/server-1.5-branch
cp -r xorg/* xserver
cd xserver
patch -p1 < ../xserver15.patch
cd xserver
./configure --host i686-pc-linux-gnu --with-included-jpeg CFLAGS=-m32
CXXFLAGS=-m32 LDFLAGS=-m32 --dis
11 matches
Mail list logo
