| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
X at OLSX at OLSPosted Jul 23, 2004 11:29 UTC (Fri) by niallm (subscriber, #3923)Parent article: X at OLS Folks, I can't parse this sentence: "It seems that the bulk of X traffic, anymore, is image data, and much of that data compresses very well.". 1. I don't understand what 'anymore' means in this context. Could it not simply be removed? NRM
(Log in to post comments)
X at OLS Posted Jul 23, 2004 11:46 UTC (Fri) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] Sorry, I was in a hurry."Anymore" because things have really changed; back when X11 was first designed and implemented, there was nowhere near as much image data in the stream. As far as compression: one does not communicate images to the server in a format like JPEG; at that level in the protocol, you're dealing with basic raster line data. More to the point, though: much of this image data is created by the client; glyphs and such. Jim said you can get up to 1:300 compression on some of that stuff.
X at OLS Posted Jul 23, 2004 12:49 UTC (Fri) by niallm (subscriber, #3923) [Link] Thanks Jon.It occurs to me that there's something just a little bit suboptimal in the scenario where a JPEG is retrieved by a web browser from a remote site, which is then rasterised and transferred to an X server at a couple of hundred times the bandwidth and CPU usage! Hopefully Jim will be able to apply some clever ideas to this.
X at OLS Posted Jul 23, 2004 19:19 UTC (Fri) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link] In a local case this "transfer" is function telling X server to use acertain shared memory segment. I don't think it makes sense to compress shared memory for the sake making it smaller, on blitting it needs to be uncompressed anyway. :-)
X at OLS Posted Jul 29, 2004 7:02 UTC (Thu) by chepelov (guest, #23542) [Link] unless your client (browser) is living on a different machine from the server (X).In that case, you have to get the (http)client (the browser, again) to download the JPEG, decompress it into the client machine's memory, just to send it back to the X server over the network. This is what the parent is complaining about. IIRC, there's a JPEG extension around (I think I saw that close to freedesktop.org). The idea being that the browser would use the extension to keep the image compressed all the way to the X server. If the server and client live on the same machine, the same CPU will decompress it anyway, so there should be no penalty. If server != client, then you win. Really, using Mozilla over a 10Mbit/s LAN is no fun nowadays...
X at OLS Posted Aug 3, 2004 14:12 UTC (Tue) by kzin (guest, #841) [Link] The browser would have to open and read the JPEG file anyway before sending it to the X server, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being security.
X at OLS Posted Aug 5, 2004 9:07 UTC (Thu) by renox (guest, #23785) [Link] Can you elaborate?I'm not sure how decompressing a JPEG file may be a security problem, either it decompress correctly or it doesn't and the X Server should return an error to the browser, but how is this a security problem?
Of course in case of decompression error, there is a loss of performance due to the unneeded transfer of the JPEG, but errors should be very rare..
X at OLS Posted Jul 23, 2004 12:01 UTC (Fri) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] "Anymore", in the positive sense, is a regional usage, meant to mean "nowadays". Correctly used, it is always coupled with a negative: "The bulk of X traffic is not ordinary X events any more, but image data".
X at OLS Posted Jul 23, 2004 20:42 UTC (Fri) by socket (guest, #43) [Link] I can't resist this. From the Oxford English Dictionary online:more, a. (n.) and adv. [...] 4. [...] The phrase any more (freq. written as anymore) (see B. 4a), in which more is the absolute adj., is used advb. in the same sense, and has superseded the simple adv. except in rhetorical or poetic use; also dial. (chiefly U.S.) used in affirmative as well as negative contexts in the sense now, now-a-days, at the present time; from now on. See also NO MORE adv. I use this sense of "anymore" a lot - both positive and negative. It may be regional, but that region is apparently large enough that the OED considers the U.S. to be that region. And speaking as a linguist, I find it annoying when people say things like "Correctly used," because the "correct" forms more often match up with archaic forms, and very often with a couple-centuries-old idea that English would be better off if it were more like Latin, leading to rules about how "This is a sentence construction up with which we should not put," which nobody, 200 years ago or now, really thinks is a reasonable way to express oneself as a native English speaker. So nyeh.
X at OLS Posted Jul 25, 2004 14:45 UTC (Sun) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Apparently the OED doesn't distinguish among bits of the colonies. The American Heritage Dictionary identifies it as regional, restricted primarily to Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Northern Ireland.The restriction to qualifying negative clauses doesn't come from some arbitrary Latin rule. It comes directly from the meanings of the words "any" and "more", which a moment's thought will elucidate. "Correct usage" does have, at base, an objective meaning: it means "expected to be understood by most readers". The usage in question manifestly confused enough readers that one posted his distress. Peculiar latinate constructions, by contrast, have never been a part of spoken English.
"anymore" Posted Jul 29, 2004 4:20 UTC (Thu) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] Interesting. My upline family resides primarily in the US northwest,Oregon and Washington, altho I spent six years growing up in Kenya, East Africa, as a missionary kid, and have lived in New Mexico, graduated high school in Colorado, attended college in Nebraska, and am now (after another stint in Oregon) residing in Arizona. IOW, while I've had a generally broad geographic experience, none of it has been in the area claimed to be the region the term is used. However, it seemed an entirely ordinary term, to me. I wouldn't have been aware of its "regional" usage, had I not read this thread. <shrug> Maybe one of the other missionary families came from Tennessee, or something, and their usage rubbed off on me. I don't know. I just know it sounds entirely natural to me. <shrug> Duncan
"upline family" Posted Jul 30, 2004 22:28 UTC (Fri) by cdurst (guest, #2953) [Link] Interesting. My upline family resides primarily in the US northwest, ...Upline family? Yech, MLM terms are seeping into English! Kill me now.
"anymore" Posted Aug 5, 2004 15:15 UTC (Thu) by fache (guest, #23795) [Link] Just for the sake of discussion, in the six years I have been living inEngland, I have never heard nor read anymore used like so. I would thing it's an americanism. Thanks for explaining anyway!
incorrect usage Posted Jul 30, 2004 16:15 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] "Correct usage" does have, at base, an objective meaning: it means "expected to be understood by most readers". That's just the opposite of how I understand "correct usage." The term is used to distinguish two sentences that both can easily be understood. The "correct" one additionally follows certain rules so as not to offend language purists. I personally find the correct form less ambiguous in many cases, but unless you know the grammar well, as most native speakers do not, you don't. Example: "to send someone an email, click on their address." Easily understood, but incorrect because "their" is plural and "someone" is singular. A sentence that can't be understood -- which is just jibberish -- usually goes by some description other than "incorrect usage."
incorrect usage Posted Aug 5, 2004 6:37 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] That's "gibberish", to you :-)
X at OLS Posted Aug 5, 2004 6:36 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > Apparently the OED doesn't distinguish among bits of the colonies.> The American Heritage Dictionary identifies it as regional, > restricted primarily to Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Iowa, > Oklahoma, and Northern Ireland. Interesting ... I first heard it in Glasgow, and supposed it was Scots. But I may only have heard it once and the speaker may have been from Ulster ... hmm.
correct usage Posted Jul 30, 2004 16:01 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] >the "correct" forms more often match up with archaic forms,As the language changes, there are varying opinions at any moment as to what is archaic. Someone says some usage is "correct" when he believes that it has not yet become archaic, but others often find that it is (because they learned some newer way first). Even the most pedantic proponent of correct English today would not say that "thou" is correct in any sentence, but he might believe the rule against dangling a preposition is still current. >"This is a sentence construction up with which we should not put," which nobody, 200 years ago or now, really thinks is a reasonable way to express oneself as a native English speaker. More to the point, nobody ever thought it was correct, which makes it irrelevant to this point. "up" in this sentence is a verb particle, not a preposition, and that means the correct sentence is, "this is a sentence construction with which we should not put up." Even that sounds awkward to many current speakers, particularly uneducated ones, who prefer "... which we should not put up with." But it's still a respected enough construction to call "correct usage," and therefore to consider using if you want people to think you're smart and to avoid offending sensitive ears.
|
|
||||||||||||