From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Implementing image support for kitty terminal Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2022 15:17:55 +0200 Message-ID: References: <83v8pydl9a.fsf@gnu.org> <221cc6e0-ac45-cf03-6b17-c8c3798eebe3@gmail.com> <81f8b155-bc03-187d-2df1-9664374e890a@gmail.com> <83leqtetsk.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="VhXW1jsx6iIJPgw+" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="20193"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 09 15:20:57 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oWdwG-000531-8P for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2022 15:20:56 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54184 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oWdwA-0000KQ-Ku for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2022 09:20:54 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42652) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oWdtR-0007Dc-1i for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2022 09:18:01 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.tuxteam.de ([5.199.139.25]:60512) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oWdtO-0006hv-Fp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2022 09:18:00 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tuxteam.de; s=mail; h=From:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:To:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=KbAbARrW5BMowOUXurRvPuV/vEutgv2Tdkpv3bo7fAY=; b=ro+1RVSLrRAWZbj6WJZUvyALsD izmHX2JorVExD6/qUXKyQIA8k48ONHZIN+Ka2mQ3TKtjX3fCj3kwzq2q8oBeLgPDOkm4SQI5YgoRp wwe45355LBKh6Bk5NkLgczmRCeL3hscnc26j7rKiCUWSNcClFf2FJcyARWzQGwkwAexI7oNZCb1iz /G8JufGRyo3hhcJKq+HLen1SeQo2xxXx6nLTM2uYgJUIgjPW5vSgtbTaNeUvpy/I5si+PGrKTik7C 36C/uVYb3Uvt3+vkJC0tbZ6aReAq37pKauY9DUV0k4AG2wfsvntBWz4WH5DeEiMbBpFmhPCZYVJlQ 6UxQq5iA==; Original-Received: from tomas by mail.tuxteam.de with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1oWdtL-0003xi-Nd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2022 15:17:55 +0200 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=5.199.139.25; envelope-from=tomas@tuxteam.de; helo=mail.tuxteam.de X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:295063 Archived-At: --VhXW1jsx6iIJPgw+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 02:59:19PM +0200, Gerd M=C3=B6llmann wrote: > Stefan Monnier writes: >=20 > >>> Or even, do we still have terminals connected with, don't know, say 1= 200=20 > >>> baud or some such? > >> I don't think so, but we do have slow net links and ssh logins. > > > > I wonder how this interacts with our display optimizations, to be > > honest: slow network connections tend to suffer mostly in terms of > > "packets per second" rather than "bytes per second", so an optimization > > makes a difference only if it changes the size of a display update > > from N+1 packets to N packets (or fewer). >=20 > Where the size of packets differs in interactive use, I think. I mean, > I can't imagine how to use SSH interactively if it waited until packets > are large enough. >=20 > Hm. Hard to tell what effect that packeting has. How does SSH decide > to send something over the network in interactive mode? Nagle's algorithm and TCP_NODELAY are the keywords here, AFAIK. Cheers --=20 t --VhXW1jsx6iIJPgw+ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EABECAB0WIQRp53liolZD6iXhAoIFyCz1etHaRgUCYxs8/QAKCRAFyCz1etHa RprjAJ9BQ5Mnvtpa9GjfwNlhtUWgolro6wCffdcgKXsif3HSLkQK5zag0XQ//fM= =0F3A -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --VhXW1jsx6iIJPgw+--