[Dev] Cynara

Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) tizen at rasterman.com
Mon Apr 14 23:32:41 GMT 2014

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 15:17:12 +0300 Jussi Laako <jussi.laako at linux.intel.com>

> On 12.4.2014 6:09, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
> > to route you have to see. content + context determines routing. didn't i
> > already repeat about grabs, coordinate transformation etc.
> No, you don't need to know if I hit 'a' or 'b' on the keyboard to do 
> routing. Just as you don't need to decrypt IP packets carrying SSL 
> communication to route those.

i have explained this to you several times. you do need to know due to grabs.
i'm not going to explain it yet another time.

> > people who do this for a living have been down this design path and explored
> > it. it doesn't work. it scales horribly. look at x11 shape extension.
> > people who have been doing display systems for a long time. like most of
> > their professional lives. and that's a lot of years. i agree with them.
> > there isn't just a single matrix. it's far more complex than that. you
> > can't do transforms over a bunny
> How is this related to anything I type on this keyboard?

you route all input in a simple consitsent manner via the same daemon,
otherwise it's a mess. and regardless, grabs require key routing per press and
based on its content and current state. since i seem to be repeating myself ...
i think i'll stop.

> I happily trade shaped windows for rectangular boxes for security.
> OpenGL also keeps texture transformation data and texture pixmaps 
> separate. You upload the pixmap and then tell what kind of 
> transformation you want. OpenGL doesn't need to understand if it's 
> pixmap of stone surface or pixmap of hand-written letter 'a'. You could 
> even encrypt all pixmaps with public key cryptography to GPU's private key.
> > mesh - or a sphere, or a curled piece of paper with a single matrix. you
> > need a vast detailed mesh. and as animation changes, this mesh keeps
> > changing. handing
> Still it's separate from the content.
> > graphics is several orders of magnitude more complex and doesn't have a
> > defined standard ala tcp/ip that has to be adhered to. it's freeform.
> It is not, just check out LTE networking from right from the radio 
> signalling layer up to the IP packet layer. The radio DSP algorithms are 
> much more complex than your average desktop graphics algorithms. But 
> still the DSP layer doesn't and shouldn't understand what happens 
> several layers above and vice versa.
> > pulse audio sees all the audio data. it goes through it. also routing is
> > insanely simpler, and it's pa that defines the routing posibilites and
> > design,
> You just think all the audio DSP is insanely simpler because you don't 
> know about it or understand it...
> Pulse audio sees some of the audio data, but not all. But routing 
> decision is made by Murphy without seeing the audio data. But neither 
> one understands if I'm listening Mahler or Pink Floyd.
> I'm also accessing hw1:0 device directly on Ubuntu for example, 
> bypassing pulseaudio for serious music listening cases because otherwise 
> pulseaudio would screw up the audio quality. (and most of the time I'm 
> using 5.6 MHz DSD audio format which pulseaudio doesn't know anything about)
> > you need access to pixel data to know if there is an alpha or transparency
> > area and if events are to drop through that area or not. you need access to
> > the
> Again, how is this related to keyboard input events. Display server 
> spying on my password inputs?
> > efforts, the display server has access to all input. be that xorg (and thus
> > any x11 client via xinput), or wayland (only the display server has that
> > access, and can send/grant/route input to clients as it sees fit based on
> > its policies.
> Well, it doesn't have access to my voice control input at least. So I 
> can spell out passwords through voice.
> And I can also easily isolate it from my password inputs without the 
> display server being aware of it at all. (keyboard capture mux at kernel 
> input layer level)
> > but they will never exist. so you live in a world far away from everyone
> > else and far away from tizen. back in the real world, this is not the case,
> > and never will be because it's impractical. i think you should just go make
> > your own os, and the os you want is not the one the rest of us work on and
> > use. :)
> Again, I have it already neatly in form of changes on top of Yocto. :)

Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <tizen at rasterman.com>

More information about the Dev mailing list