From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Implementing image support for kitty terminal Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2022 08:19:44 -0400 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: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="40039"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Gerd =?windows-1252?Q?M=F6llmann?= , emacs-devel@gnu.org, jao@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 09 14:21:22 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 1oWd0c-000AEt-Ji for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2022 14:21:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47732 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oWd0a-0005Sl-UA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2022 08:21:20 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50192) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oWczA-0004mA-El for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2022 08:19:52 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:1413) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oWcz7-0003vQ-BC; Fri, 09 Sep 2022 08:19:50 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C67A780762; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 08:19:46 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6E7B18019D; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 08:19:45 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1662725985; bh=Wbw/+gJ5alTVbTdkxxM165paxV2byw0S5zWR9oBJrMw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=b5hhITMgvt+mQ6Thv4X15GLTHx9njziE1DQXL/dHNUlORHxYfH8MqX9DrpkIOhWj7 /jxvNlVrf0q9NaYyQOTbRYRvFkgp8p/ZnRhd2ftb8Ipa2Utj0C96bXouDJtERO0pdh QUNHWGy9furCtqxPPiCDnfqO74bGi3VQuAIh6lPMgVjPGBQr1PEHIvIST3+/acMUcB cKDIQRu93u3KoJNxdWb5hsB1XNqhw/3LyRybFayfIh+xhiBk6M1DGLcBsV81BFbo3E l+ZlJwzzpH4XchWPowY8OHknAeXrnWsaOAyQJwuatdF9pOCkz2heMzKbrxj9HtqAt2 W1X5iCPT4Bj4g== Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [157.52.9.190]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 32EAB1209D2; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 08:19:45 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83leqtetsk.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 08 Sep 2022 19:04:59 +0300") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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:295060 Archived-At: >> Or even, do we still have terminals connected with, don't know, say 1200 >> 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). E.g. when our display updates (counted in bytes and without frame-based redisplay) fall below the "1 packet" limit (which I presume is around 1.5kB), then using frame-based redisplay doesn't make any noticeable difference to "ssh logins over congested/slow networks". Stefan