Re: [Qemu-devel] Qemu and Synergy?

[Oliver Gerlich]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Thomas Steffen schrieb:
> On 10/22/05, Oliver Gerlich <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>>is anyone here using Synergy (see synergy2.sf.net) to make the mouse go
>>smoothly from host to guest? At first glance, I'd say Synergy offers
>>much of the stuff that's necessary for easing the use of Qemu: it can
>>transport mouse and keyboard commands to another machine (to the Qemu
>>guest), and it offers clipboard sharing.
>>
>>At second glance, Synergy moves the mouse pointer only when it reaches a
>>screen border (for good interaction with Qemu, it should move the
>>pointer whenever the Qemu windows is clicked or something like that).
> 
> 
> That sounds very much like x2x or x2vnc to me. I have been using x2vnc
> for a while when I had a Linux and a Windows box on my desk, and it
> works beautifully. Is synergy much different?
> 
> Apart from that, I think on the X11 side x2vnc works very much like
> Qemu already does. Of course the vnc side could be interesting. And
> maybe synergy has the same functionality, but with less code.
> 
> The communication over TCP could easily be moved to a QEMU specific
> transport, I guess.
> 
> Thomas
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Qemu-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel
> 
> 

Thanks for pointing out x2vnc and x2x. I didn't knew about them.
- From what I can see they have quite similar functionality as synergy,
only that synergy (if I understand correctly) works with Linux, Windows
and Mac, and the master computer doesn't necessarily have to run Linux
(correct me if I'm wrong).

Btw. according to the synergy developer there's a big refactoring
planned, which might add support for things like Qemu interaction (see
http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?thread_id=1371199&forum_id=199579).
 Also see
http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?thread_id=1372094&forum_id=199579
about changing the transport layer. Although such functionality not
absolutely necessary, it would certainly help :)

Regards,
Oliver
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDYSspTFOM6DcNJ6cRArD2AKCzRBdSC35PVgHO5ZrdHhyvLRm0OwCfT2NQ
gg/U2UDzM1n8HXpyOIIXfiE=
=pVww
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----