My little transfer just got startedI also committed the new goom visuals to gst-plugins-good. Better visuals, MMX, SSE2 and Altivec optimisations (I think). Get it from CVS while it's hot!
Hot chips, yummySaturday 23 February 2008
gnome-bluetooth nearly dead
After the fun time debugging, I started implementing ObexPush in gnome-user-share, pretty much as planned. Code's in SVN. Next up are notifications, and asking whether to accept transfers for each session.
My little transfer just got started
I also committed the new goom visuals to gst-plugins-good. Better visuals, MMX, SSE2 and Altivec optimisations (I think). Get it from CVS while it's hot!
Hot chips, yummy
My little transfer just got startedI also committed the new goom visuals to gst-plugins-good. Better visuals, MMX, SSE2 and Altivec optimisations (I think). Get it from CVS while it's hot!
Hot chips, yummy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
does it use opengl for rendering now?
Nope it still uses Xv.
Played around with a recent checkout of bluez-gnome. (ubuntu is way behind). And i was thinking about this - Why is handling wireless bluetooth that different from "wireless ethernet" (from a gui perspectives)?
Just show a list of devices as network-manager does?
Selecting a bluetooth device would ofcourse require different handling than wireless ethernet (plain select in network-manager).
Ofcourse having active scanning for bluetooth could use more power than justifiable compared to wireless ethernet, that everybody uses.
Sorry for not cooking up a patch ;)
Frej, we don't do it that way because Bluetooth isn't just a way to get access to a network from remote locations.
There's only 2 of the features handled by Bluetooth devices that have their place in NetworkManager (Dial-Up Networking and Personal Area Networking), and they're being worked on.
The rest isn't (you wouldn't show FTP servers or soundcards in NM, would you?). And you can't scan for devices all the time. See discussions about this on the NetworkManager list about why/
That makes sense, thanks for taking the time to clarify :)
Rethinking it - grouping by protocol/tech isn't that good an idea :(.
Post a Comment