[Ksummit-2012-discuss] [ATTEND] kernel core dump and "dying breath"

John 'Warthog9' Hawley warthog9 at kernel.org
Mon Jun 25 17:29:38 UTC 2012

On 06/25/2012 11:22 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 06:16:03PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:12:48AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> I think it makes much more sense to have the decoder server-side.
>>> There are two reasons for it:
>>> 1. *one* code base!
>>> I can tell you just how bad a lot of the QR decoder software running on
>>> smartphones are -- because I have tried them.
>>> 2. if the decode doesn't work, you have the picture server side, and you
>>> can perhaps improve the software and collect it as "a hard to decode
>>> picture" and use it as a regression test.
>> And the main reason not to is that a picture gives us a single data 
>> point, while most QR apps will take continuous readings until they're 
>> able to decode. The user also knows that the decode was successful 
>> *without* having to work out how to get a multi-MB picture off their 
>> phone and into the interwebs.
> So why not try both? Assuming that this is hidden inside an `app' of some
> description, we could try to decode the image on the phone first. If that
> fails, we send the image instead and possibly some information about the
> phone so we can name-and-shame the offending hardware. I guess it depends on
> how reluctant we are to develop/support a client-side application.

It all depends on how easy the QR code libraries are to deal with client
side.  Some are pretty reasonable (Android's isn't bad), some pretty
much don't exist (my friends who have tried QR codes w/ iOS devices say
it's a pretty solid mess).  Attempting a decode client side can be
useful, but I don't think you can get away from the idea of shipping the
multi-megabyte image up to the server.

Yeah it sucks, but the places where you are most likely going to be
taking these photos is also where you are very likely to have wifi
access, and high speed internet - so taking that photo and uploading it
isn't as onerous as if you were trying to upload it from the middle of
South Dakota on the highway (there's not even cell signal there, I can
confirm that from recent experience).

Given that people upload multi-megabyte photos to google+, facebook and
twitter daily from their smart phones, is it really that big of an issue?

- John

More information about the Ksummit-2012-discuss mailing list