From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1G7W0p-0002tZ-MD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 07:32:43 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1G7W0n-0002rf-Vw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 07:32:43 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G7W0n-0002rS-Te for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 07:32:41 -0400 Received: from [195.212.29.155] (helo=mtagate6.de.ibm.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1G7W3S-0000XC-3e for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 07:35:26 -0400 Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate6.de.ibm.com (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id k6VBWcAb072844 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:32:39 GMT Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.228]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.13.6/NCO/VER7.0) with ESMTP id k6VBa39V090488 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:36:03 +0200 Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k6VBWbOX011440 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:32:37 +0200 Message-ID: <44CDEA54.9060703@nl.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:32:36 +0200 From: Eric Hameleers MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] AltGr keystrokes References: <44CDD7BA.80602@nl.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Eric Hameleers wrote: > > >>What is the difference with the old RFB patch that the currently >>built-in VNC server handles differently? > > > The old RFB patch uses the infrastructure of LibVNCServer, which has been > tried and tested. > > Unfortunately, Anthony decided to fix the issue he had not by submitting a > patch to LibVNCServer, but by completely rewriting the functionality. So, > the old RFB patch and the built-in VNC server share only the goal. > > Ciao, > Dscho > Hi Johannes Yes I know, and although the libvncserver based patch was cumbersome over high-latency connections it was still useful (and I was able to access the monitor). With Anthony's re-implementation I get great improvements regarding the screen refresh, but I have lost access to the monitor (so I have to use a separate telnet connection now) and most importantly, I cannot use my keyboard reliably which makes this implementation effectively useless to me. I guess I will have to look into the keymaps myself, but on first quick inspection I did not find anything out of order in the "nl" keymap. Eric -- Eric Hameleers RedHat Certified Engineer #808003505607683 Linux Knowledge Center, IBM Global Services Email: alien@nl.ibm.com Jabber: alien@jabber.xs4all.nl