walt wrote:
> On 07/26/2009 01:56 PM, Jim Gettys wrote:
>> David Moffatt wrote:
>>> Responding to the thread about mapping hardware scan codes --> X key
>>> codes and keyboards with> 248 keys.
>>>
>>> Perhaps the solution is to take the hardware scan code --> Symbol
>>> problem out of the X layer entirely. Let the OS deal with that in its
>>> own manner.
>>>
>> X already does this: keycodes in X have no need to be even remotely
>> similar to what the operating system does, or what the hardware generates.
>>
>> Keycodes on various other platforms may have values that bear no
>> resemblance to the codes used in Linux, or in IBM derivative keyboards...
>
> Being strictly an amateur programmer, I've always wondered how many
> people/institutions actually use X for remote display the way it was
> designed to be used. Seems to introduce a great deal of confusing
> complexity for features many of us never use.
>
Actually, quite a lot. E.g. HP and others sell thin clients in
commercial (and engineering) settings. And LTSP is quite popular in the
developing world for more general desktop use. Extrapolating yourself
to the world is fraught with difficulties...
- Jim
_______________________________________________
xorg mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
