Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.bhp.com.au!mel.dit.csiro.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!solace!nntp.uio.no!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.compulink.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x,comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc From: rockson@idirect.com (jw) Subject: Re: Sometimes you need X server source (Was: Why to not buy Matrox Millennium) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99c/32.126 X-Client-Port: 1034 Message-ID: <ragnaroek1996Apr18.090109.14374@news2.compulink.com> References: <4j21ph$crr@slappy.cs.utexas.edu> <4j36ev$prl@news.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de> <4ja099$r8k@ceylon.gte.com> <ragnaroek1996Mar28.063723.8733@news2.compulink.com> <4jkg1l$dl@titan.saturn.net> X-Nntp-Posting-Host: fatenet31.idirect.com Date: 18 Apr 96 13:01:09 GMT Lines: 55 Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.development.apps:14509 comp.os.linux.development.system:21501 comp.os.linux.hardware:36508 comp.os.linux.setup:50794 comp.os.linux.x:29466 comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc:619 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:3235 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:17458 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:3056 On 30 Mar 1996 23:27:49 GMT, mi@aldan.saturn.net (Mikhail Teterin) wrote: >Jon Walters > wrote on Mar 28, 1996 > (in article <ragnaroek1996Mar28.063723.8733@news2.compulink.com>): > >=Is it a figment of my imagination or do most modems already compress >=any data being transfered. That would make LBX a waste of time. > >1st, LBX this is not really relevant, because it is not the only >thing one may or may not wish present in his/her X-server. It was a while ago but the response was in relation to a person who wanted to run the LBX server on his machine. > >2nd, LBX is compressing on a much higher level, because it *knows*, >that it is compressing X-protocol. Modems, on the contrary, just >try to compress the stream of bits. A proper analogy whould be >optimization by compiler, which knows the source code (and can >easier understand what and how to optimize) and optimization of a >binary by hardware (CPU and friends). Try reading the X consortium documentation on LBX. As far as I can tell, all LBX is doing is stream compression using the LZW algorithm. If you have any documentation that says the opposite, please point it out to me so that I may stand corrected. > >Back to X -- the whole idea of X-protocol (as well as of other >protocols) is, that it is to *explain* one side what the other side >wants. Like: > X-client: Hey, put the line from (X1,Y1) to (X2,Y2) for me > please. > X-server: Done. > X-client: I'd like to use the font like: "....". You have it? > [ ... ] > >Because LBX-aware X-software knows X-protocol, it can achieve much >better level of compression, then a "stupid" modem. Just like it >is easier (faster) to talk to someone, who has a clue (no offense ;) > What I got out of the documentation is that the LBX driver sits outside of the server so the server itself is unaware of its existence. Again, if you have any documentation saying otherwise, please point it out to me. > -mi >-- > "Windows for dummies" >