Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hawaii Desktop Stable Released, Powered By Qt 5.2 & Wayland

Posted by timothy on from the take-a-vacation dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The Maui OS Project has made their first stable release of the Hawaii Desktop. Hawaii is still catching up with GNOME, Xfce, and KDE in terms of features, but it's written from scratch atop next-generation open-source technologies. In particular, Hawaii 0.2.0 is powered by the brand new Qt 5.2 tool-kit and runs natively on Wayland's Weston 1.3 compositor. Hawaii 0.2.0 carries all standard Linux desktop features but more advanced desktop functionality is planned while focusing around a Wayland design and eventually their own Green Island Compositor."

137 comments

  1. First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pineapple

  2. Another Desktop UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pussy and Beer! That's what I like.

  3. "next generation" my ass! by larry+bagina · · Score: 2, Funny

    QT is last generation. Next generation is javascript using node. It never blocks! It never wastes time creating new threads! That's why it's faster.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    1. Re:"next generation" my ass! by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That was funny! Wait you were joking right?

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    2. Re:"next generation" my ass! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sadly, web monkeys really do believe this even if the parent is joking (and one really, really hopes they are joking).

    3. Re:"next generation" my ass! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, that cant be true, surely they would know enou... Right?..

    4. Re:"next generation" my ass! by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2, Funny

      The problem is what QT isn't web scale!

    5. Re:"next generation" my ass! by Desler · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why would QuickTime need to be web scale?

    6. Re:"next generation" my ass! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This explains why Windows 3.1 was so much faster than Windows 95. (sarcasm).

    7. Re:"next generation" my ass! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose you could consider me a "web monkey." I, and my co-workers, fucking hate Javascript with a passion. We still can't understand why we aren't using anything else.

    8. Re:"next generation" my ass! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow off-topic?

      Windows 3.1 had cooperative multitasking. Each application had to wait for a different application to yield. If an application failed and started to act like it was in an infinite loop then the whole desktop locked up.

      Windows 95 was an improvement since it introduced preemptive multitasking to the windows home desktop.

      The lack of historical knowledge explains why Node.js fans are doomed to make the same fucking mistake.

    9. Re:"next generation" my ass! by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

      I imagine that if there were anything else, you'd be using it.

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    10. Re:"next generation" my ass! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But node.js let's me write server-side javascript! *fap* *fap* *fap*

    11. Re:"next generation" my ass! by larry+bagina · · Score: 2

      server side javascript... that never blocks! If you use C++ to read from a tcp connection, it can block and that makes it slow. node.js doesn't block so it's fast.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    12. Re:"next generation" my ass! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can use non-blocking IO in C++, C, Ruby, Python, Perl, Scala, Java, etc. since it is an option in the TCP stack. I really hope you aren't really a clueless javascript monkey.

    13. Re:"next generation" my ass! by advance-software · · Score: 0

      c#

      why not ?

      merry christmas all.

    14. Re:"next generation" my ass! by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

      Why would you use C# to replace Javascript? I can possibly see it as a replacement for Java though. Are you misunderstanding the difference between the two?

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    15. Re:"next generation" my ass! by advance-software · · Score: 0

      because it can be used as a client side machine independent "scripting" language - like javascript.

      and it's properly typed which means you can likely compile to more optimal code.

      js uses doubles for everything which isn't optimal. recall some talk of this changing.

      c# supports multiple threads, etc. etc.

      java would do as an alternative also. not quite sure why it's gone out of fashion.

      just because js is the html5 default scripting language doesn't mean it's the best choice. we can evolve.

      unity (3d html page plugin) uses c# for example. as does a ton of other stuff.

      mono implementation for non m$. what's blocking html5 supporting this out of the box, aside from inertia ?

    16. Re:"next generation" my ass! by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      Because most of the alternatives to Javascript suck more.

    17. Re:"next generation" my ass! by unixisc · · Score: 1

      From Qt based DEs, how does Hawaii compare to KDE, Razor-qt and now LXDE?

    18. Re:"next generation" my ass! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiot.

    19. Re:"next generation" my ass! by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

      I might consider using C# as a back end replacement for php assuming it has support to access a database like mysql but certainly not as a client side replacement for javascript. C# is a Microsoft scripting language that's equivalent to things like Perl, Python, and PHP. It would be something I'd use if I were more familiar with programming Windows type applications. Since I'm a Unix admin, I'm more likely to use Perl for general scripting and PHP for my backend work on websites simply because it's what I'm familiar with.

      And mono isn't a complete implementation for non-Microsoft environments.

      C# does seem like massive overkill to replace a moderately simple website and likely doesn't work on my OpenBSD server where PHP does :)

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    20. Re:"next generation" my ass! by bbsalem · · Score: 1

      java would do as an alternative also. not quite sure why it's gone out of fashion .

      Because Sun blew the design of the class libraries. The language and its APIs are too expensive to learn and manage, and the JRE requires too much processor specific tuning to run effectively everywhere, so the language, Java, sucks for clean development, it is security through obfescation, and dicy performance in many places.

      Sun sold it to the corporate glass houses because it was clunky and hard to learn. If you don't believe me, look at acm.jar, the alternative interface for the top level cousole. That archive appeared at the instant java went opensource and with good reason. Sun had intended to make java an elitist language. This is not to say that many people didn't master it in the time froma 1995-2005, but it quickly fell out of favor. I think I know why.

  4. Waiting for it to mature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'll check it out when Hawaii reaches 0.5.0, and it better have the theme song play when I log in.

    1. Re:Waiting for it to mature by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Yeah they haven't even got screenshots yet.

    2. Re:Waiting for it to mature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but if you give it one wrongly typed command you get voted off the island by the lolcats and your terminal session is terminated.

    3. Re:Waiting for it to mature by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No qemu or vmware support because drivers. No nvidia support except for nouveau which is not happy on my cards. Hopefully 0.5.0 will have these features as well ;)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Waiting for it to mature by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I'm waiting for benchmarks from all those guys that kept saying "it's faster than X" based on nothing but gut feel. Well fanboys, somebody has done the work for you now so download it, try it, and give us some real answers based on something other than gut feel. How much faster?

  5. Way behind! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But at least it's using wayland, the thing that's supposed to be better than X while supporting less features.

    1. Re:Way behind! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other than network transparency, what exactly of value does X do that Wayland doesn't?

    2. Re:Way behind! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Funny

      Other than network transparency, what exactly of value does X do that Wayland doesn't?

      "Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"

    3. Re:Way behind! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the person said features plural, it would have to encompass more than just that, no?

    4. Re:Way behind! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, X has been around for almost 30 years... you'd hope that Wayland can beat the pants off of X.

    5. Re:Way behind! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's here. It works.

    6. Re:Way behind! by laffer1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      X works on my operating system.

      --
      MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
    7. Re:Way behind! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing that scares the pants off of Wayland developers is that after all the effort spent to make Wayland half as stable as X is that the performance gains will be either too little to justify the effort or none at all.

    8. Re:Way behind! by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > Other than network transparency, what exactly of value does X do that Wayland doesn't?

      How about multiple displays? This is a handy feature for when one of your apps (Steam) like to take over your entire screen.

      Wayland either needs to support the old way of doing things or have a new way of doing things that's a suitable replacement. Sandboxing apps written by developers with a single user OS mindset would not be a bad genuine "killer feature".

      "Gets rid of that vile thing called X" is not a killer feature.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    9. Re:Way behind! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Valve is already contributing to Wayland because X performance is abysmal.

    10. Re:Way behind! by Uecker · · Score: 2

      Decades of backwards and forwards compatibility. The real question is: What does Wayland offer?

      And yes, I think it is stupid to design in 2013 a display protocol which is not network transparent at its core. In a world where internet is finally everywhere, and X (if embraced) would allow to move a game from smartphone to TV when coming home. Or a text window from notebook to tablet for discussion around a table, or .... And no, RDP does not cut it.

    11. Re:Way behind! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Decades of backwards and forwards compatibility. The real question is: What does Wayland offer?

      And yes, I think it is stupid to design in 2013 a display protocol which is not network transparent at its core. In a world where internet is finally everywhere, and X (if embraced) would allow to move a game from smartphone to TV when coming home. Or a text window from notebook to tablet for discussion around a table, or .... And no, RDP does not cut it.

      But by that standard X is not network transparent at its core. Anyone using X on a desktop (GTK, QT apps) will be using the SHM, Randr, XVideo, XInput2 etc extensions which means that after start-up a typical application is not using much of the core protocol. When you try to use one of these applications over a network the toolkits fall back to using the core X protocol just to blast lots of large pixmaps down the wire, because the core X11 protocol graphics is so outdated it just can't handle alpha blending, properly hinted fonts and so on. How is that different from RDP, except that RDP was designed and heavily optimized for that use case (and yes, RDP can send individual windows, not just the whole desktop).

      That's quiet apart from the fact that X11 was designed to use local, narrow-band (by modern standards) networks to render simple (by modern standards) graphics. It is very 'chatty' in terms of round-trips it requires. Using it over high-latency links is not pleasant at all, even if the bandwidth of the link is orders of magnitude greater than was available in 1990. It's just not optimized well for current use.

      Wayland offers a simpler, saner design that doesn't have duplication of effort between applications, compositors, window managers and the core. It eliminates decades of subsystems that have to be supported but are duplicative or totally useless (such as the cross-platform ELF library loading, the crappy bitmap font rendering and the 'stippled line' support). It is built around the assumption that there may well be graphics accelerators of varying capabilities that may be used, rather than insisting that using such support is an 'extension'. Most significantly, many of the core X.org developers are working on it, because they don't see that X can be taken much further.

    12. Re: Way behind! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Performance is not why they made Weyland.

    13. Re:Way behind! by fnj · · Score: 1

      Anyone using X on a desktop (GTK, QT apps) will be using the SHM, Randr, XVideo, XInput2 etc extensions which means that after start-up a typical application is not using much of the core protocol.

      Turning off my techie and programmer sides for a moment, what I do know as a user is that, regardless of whether or not the things I run are causing any of those to be invoked, all the X apps I run are indeed pragmatically absolutely network transparent. If I run gedit or kate remotely on the LAN, it is just as responsive and usable and featureful as locally. Same with eclipse. Same with gnome-terminal and konsole. Same with libreoffice. Same with damn close to every single other app I use. Practically the only one where I can even tell the difference is mplayer, but it's bloody amazing to me that mplayer even works at all remotely. And it does.

      So, in my particular experience, none of the things you point out have any relevance at all to network transparency. It's not that the point of view is of no interest or even no validity; it's that it is not relevant to my needs.

      Yeah, I use Gnome2 plus some KDE apps, both with all the juvenile eye candy useless bullshit turned off. Because I have things to get done, efficiently. And X is getting it done.

    14. Re:Way behind! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yes, I think it is stupid to design in 2013 a display protocol which is not network transparent at its core. In a world where internet is finally everywhere, and X (if embraced) would allow to move a game from smartphone to TV when coming home. Or a text window from notebook to tablet for discussion around a table, or .... And no, RDP does not cut it.

      Actually you're the one stuck in the past. If the complexity of the drawing input is smaller than the rendered picture then you want to send that over the wire and render on the client. A good example is HTML/CSS. If the complexity of the drawing input is greater than the rendered picture then you want to render server side and send the finished picture over the wire. For example, you don't want to send hundreds of megabytes of textures to the client for it to render a two megapixel frame of a game. Between your CPU and GPU is the fastest and widest bus in your computer, a 16x PCIe 3.0 bus can push ~16GB/s. Even gigabit ethernet is only 125MB/s and in practice you want it to work on a 8Mbit/s = 1MB/s broadband connection or less.

      When X was designed state of the art graphics was a lot like HTML, to say "draw a box here" was much faster than sending a picture of the box. But that has gradually changed, we haven't added so many more pixels but the rendering behind each one has grown more and more complex with shaders and transparencies and aliasing and 3D effects and whatnot. Sending all of that over to the client side works poorer and poorer, because the tiny little link between the server and the client is only a trickle of what it is locally. For example if you want to flip through all your windows like a book, then you'd have to send all of them to the client so it can render them as pages, it's less efficient not more.

    15. Re:Way behind! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turning off my techie and programmer sides for a moment, what I do know as a user is that, regardless of whether or not the things I run are causing any of those to be invoked, all the X apps I run are indeed pragmatically absolutely network transparent. If I run gedit or kate remotely on the LAN, it is just as responsive and usable and featureful as locally. Same with eclipse. Same with gnome-terminal and konsole. Same with libreoffice. Same with damn close to every single other app I use. Practically the only one where I can even tell the difference is mplayer, but it's bloody amazing to me that mplayer even works at all remotely. And it does.

      OK... so presumably from a pragmatic perspective, an RDP-like solution for Wayland would not be a problem.

      So, in my particular experience, none of the things you point out have any relevance at all to network transparency. It's not that the point of view is of no interest or even no validity; it's that it is not relevant to my needs.

      If you are just saying that "users don't care about internal technical matters and [foo] works for me" - well you could post that on almost every Slashdot story.

      Yeah, I use Gnome2 plus some KDE apps, both with all the juvenile eye candy useless bullshit turned off. Because I have things to get done, efficiently. And X is getting it done.

      Even with "the juvenile eye candy useless bullshit turned off" your Gnome2 and KDE apps are still using things like Cairo, Truetype and Pango that can't be remoted over native X protocol (other than sending pre-rendered pixmaps similarly to RDP), so you are still using a completely different code-path for remote access versus local access. Therefore, the suggestion that the code-path would be different for Wayland is presumably not a problem for you.

      Is Wayland as fully featured as X.org for most users today? No. But some people seem to have an over-the-top hatred for even the idea of ever replacing X11, based on the completely false idea that X is some sort of elegant, well designed system rather than a towering pile of extensions on kludges on extensions that the core X.org developers don't think has a long-term future.

    16. Re:Way behind! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about graphics support, you know, other than the limited shit this release has.

    17. Re:Way behind! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Wayland offers a simpler, saner design

      Monolithic instead of modular is not necessarily sane it just looks better in block diagrams. The original proposal for Wayland (one toolkit, one unalterable window manager, linux only by design) is not really what I would call sane but it has developed into a more modular idea and become more sane - a bit like X really :)

      Most significantly, many of the core X.org developers are working on it

      This keeps getting repeated but seems to be a misrepresentation of Kieth Packard saying "looks interesting - good luck with your Wayland project".

    18. Re:Way behind! by jbolden · · Score: 1

      . In a world where internet is finally everywhere, and X (if embraced) would allow to move a game from smartphone to TV when coming home. Or a text window from notebook to tablet for discussion around a table, or .

      X doesn't allow that. X has frequent round trips. Which means over a WAN it is a very high latency protocol. The fixes for that have been to semi-shatter "network transparency". X can only work well on a mid latency setup, a LAN, the environment it evolved to handle. So no, X wouldn't allow you to do those things.

      Worse it doesn't even allow you to do those things locally, Because one of the areas X also sucks at is complex graphics like TV and graphics and games. And that's because you can't share video buffers with applications buffers because it is client / server. So what that means is that locally you get many of the disadvantages of client / server or at the very least 1/2 graphical performance especially for games.

      The reason people think X is obsolete is because the use case for which X is designed and optimized is rare in today's world.

    19. Re:Way behind! by Uecker · · Score: 1

      But by that standard X is not network transparent at its core. Anyone using X on a desktop (GTK, QT apps) will be using the SHM, Randr, XVideo, XInput2 etc extensions which means that after start-up a typical application is not using much of the core protocol.

      That X11 had been designed to be extensible is one of its strength. That there is special support to make all overhead go away for local client does not seem to be something bad to me. As you correctly point out: this is transparent to most applications:

      When you try to use one of these applications over a network the toolkits fall back to using the core X protocol just to blast lots of large pixmaps down the wire, because the core X11 protocol graphics is so outdated it just can't handle alpha blending, properly hinted fonts and so on.

      You seem to be confused. X has been extended for example with XRender which supports alpha blending. But this has nothing to do with network transparency, XRender is perfectly network transparent.

      How is that different from RDP, except that RDP was designed and heavily optimized for that use case (and yes, RDP can send individual windows, not just the whole desktop).

      The important part is to realize that showing graphics remotely is only a minor part of a network transparent display protocol.

      That's quiet apart from the fact that X11 was designed to use local, narrow-band (by modern standards) networks to render simple (by modern standards) graphics.

      First of all, X was designed to be flexible. This is why it is still great, because could and has been adapted to modern requirements.

      It is very 'chatty' in terms of round-trips it requires. Using it over high-latency links is not pleasant at all, even if the bandwidth of the link is orders of magnitude greater than was available in 1990. It's just not optimized well for current use.

      Again, this is a misunderstanding. Many X applications do indeed suck over high-latency links. But this is not an inherent problem of the X protocol, but because nobody toolkits are doing things in a stupid way and nobody fixed it.

      Wayland offers a simpler, saner design that doesn't have duplication of effort between applications, compositors, window managers and the core.

      You seem to think that this monolithic design is a good idea. I disagree. Wayland was really simple in the beginning, now as it starts to become useful it is getting more complex duplicating a lot of stuff which has already been solved in X a long time ago. At the time it will be able to replace X, it will not be much simpler anymore, but a lot less powerful. Maybe some old stuff can get eliminated, but I doubt that this is worth it: I do not see how any of this 'old stuff' gets into the way of doing 'new stuff' on top of the X protocol.

      It eliminates decades of subsystems that have to be supported but are duplicative or totally useless (such as the cross-platform ELF library loading, the crappy bitmap font rendering and the 'stippled line' support).

      I don't see how bitmap font rendering or 'stuppled line' support can be a great maintance burden. For ELF library loading this might be different, but this does not seem to be a core problem of X.

      It is built around the assumption that there may well be graphics accelerators of varying capabilities that may be used, rather than insisting that using such support is an 'extension'.

      This doesn't make sense.

      Most significantly, many of the core X.org developers are working on it, because they don't see that X can be taken much further.

      This seems to be a myth. Some people who now work on Wayland have commited to X would be more accurate.

    20. Re:Way behind! by Uecker · · Score: 1

      In a world where internet is finally everywhere, and X (if embraced) would allow to move a game from smartphone to TV when coming home. Or a text window from notebook to tablet for discussion around a table, or .

      X doesn't allow that. X has frequent round trips. Which means over a WAN it is a very high latency protocol. The fixes for that have been to semi-shatter "network transparency".

      X allows that. You have to hack in at the client side, because no toolkit bothers to implement moving windows from screen to the others, but I did it for some of my applications. The same is true for roundtrips. The protocol is asynchronous, but toolkits use it in a synchronous way.

      X can only work well on a mid latency setup, a LAN, the environment it evolved to handle. So no, X wouldn't allow you to do those things.

      Worse it doesn't even allow you to do those things locally, Because one of the areas X also sucks at is complex graphics like TV and graphics and games.

      What is wrong with OpenGL?

      And that's because you can't share video buffers with applications buffers because it is client / server.

      You mean DRI does not exist?

    21. Re:Way behind! by jbolden · · Score: 1

      That's X culture i.e. Unix culture more than it is X itself. If they were genuinely implementing using X you wouldn't be happy. What you are happy about is they care to make remote work well. I don't think that's going away. With a separation of protocols so that Unix developers have an explicit: local, LAN and WAN solution it will be much easier than having a LAN solution and then throwing a local solution on top and trying to get that to work and then some gimmicks to make WAN work....

    22. Re:Way behind! by Uecker · · Score: 1

      Yeah right, just look how abysmal it performs:
      http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/linux/faster-zombies/

      Left 4 Dead 2 on Windows 7 with Direct3D drivers, we get 270.6 FPS as
      OpenGL implementation on Windows. Left 4 Dead 2 is now running at 303.4 FPS
      Left 4 Dead 2 is running at 315 FPS on Linux.

    23. Re:Way behind! by Uecker · · Score: 1

      I use CUDA for HPC. I also use X over the network everyday. Please don't educate me about bandwidth. Your point seems to be that sending OpenGL over the network is not a good idea and that it is better to send the rendering result. This is certainly true for many 3D applications such as games. Guess what. Both can be done with the X protocol. No need to break compatibility.

    24. Re:Way behind! by CajunArson · · Score: 1

      That's mostly proving that OpenGL is fast. Which it is. You know one of the major reasons *why* OpenGL is fast? Because it practically bypasses your X server in order to get anything done.

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    25. Re:Way behind! by Uecker · · Score: 1

      Right. The X doesn't do much. It is also not slow for what it does. So why replace it?

    26. Re:Way behind! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      X works on my operating system.

      Are you running OS X?

  6. Another? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Another Desktop??? Can't we focus on getting ONE right?

    1. Re:Another? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another operating system??? Can't we focus on getting ONE right?

      Another graphics card??? Can't we focus on getting ONE right?

      Another CPU??? Can't we focus on getting ONE right?

      Another model of car??? Can't we focus on getting ONE right?

    2. Re:Another? by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      Another Desktop??? Can't we focus on getting ONE right?

      Define 'right' for all users.

    3. Re:Another? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Define 'right' for all users.

      The Common Desktop Environment obviously :)
      I think Sun/Oracle don't even use that themselves now.

  7. Just took a look at it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It looks like Windows 8 with Stardock's UI fixes.

  8. No screenshots? by temcat · · Score: 1

    Seriously.

    1. Re:No screenshots? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Click the first link, screenshots halfway down the page.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:No screenshots? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Try this:

      http://www.maui-project.org/

      What I'm not seeing immediately is what package manager they are using in their distro - is this Debian based, or Arch or what?

    3. Re:No screenshots? by temcat · · Score: 1

      Thanks!

    4. Re:No screenshots? by temcat · · Score: 1

      Thank you, now found it.

  9. And why would I care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    So, is this news?

  10. no one cares.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Repeating fot the thousand time:
    Most Linux developers do not care about marketshare.

  11. Network Transparency ... solved by mehemiah · · Score: 1

    what's that now? Its called internal support for freeRDP

    1. Re:Network Transparency ... solved by ThePhilips · · Score: 0

      RDP is not the same as network transparency. It is the opposite of the network transparency.

      With X you can run side by side on the same physical screen applications from the different servers.

      Anyway. I think that Wayland is similar to tablets: it is targeted at consumers, not power users or engineers.

      Who knows, by the time the Wayland matures FreeBSD might improve hardware support and finally run well on new hardware. Not only that would mean I get to keep the X but I also would get much better audio quality.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    2. Re:Network Transparency ... solved by CajunArson · · Score: 0, Troll

      You sed: RDP is not the same as network transparency. It is the opposite of the network transparency.

      In that case, any even remotely modern version of X isn't network transparent either since X is basically operating as a poorly implemented version of RDP using any GUI toolkit like GTK or Qt. P.S. --> The lead developers of X.org agree with me that the modern version of X that real people use in the real world is not network transparent, so unless you are even a more experienced X developer, I'm going to agree with them and not you.

      You sed: With X you can run side by side on the same physical screen applications from the different servers.

      2008 called and it wants its complaint about RDP back (this functionality was introduced a LONG time ago). RDP can be implemented using Wayland too you know, it's not a strictly a Windows thing.

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    3. Re:Network Transparency ... solved by ThePhilips · · Score: 0, Troll

      The lead developers of X.org agree with me that the modern version of X that real people use in the real world is not network transparent

      So you apparently have no idea what they are talking about, but somehow Keith Packard agrees with you? LOL

      They talk about server-side vs. client-side rendering. And it is true that it doesn't make much sense and RDP in a way is an improvement. But that argument rests on the generalization that there are no other X using applications beside GTK/GNOME and Qt/KDE. There are still plenty of Motiff/Lesstiff/Athena/Xaw/Tk applications around.

      Anyway, if we are to generalize, then why not generalize it to the logical end: everything is a web app. Even now, what most consumers see on their screens is a rendered HTML. And PCs are dead - long live tablets.

      2008 called and it wants its complaint about RDP back (this functionality was introduced a LONG time ago). RDP can be implemented using Wayland too you know, it's not a strictly a Windows thing.

      So. You have no idea what "network transparency" really means.

      Or you would have mentioned the seamless RDP - and all PITAs associated with it. That thing (with the "official" XenApps) is a such miserable experience that nobody willingly is using it.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    4. Re:Network Transparency ... solved by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Funny

      You sed:

      sed s/sed/said/

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    5. Re:Network Transparency ... solved by CajunArson · · Score: 4, Interesting

      " You have no idea what "network transparency" really means."

      No... you don't.

      Me*: Network transparency means that applications can render graphics to a local terminal or over a network with zero changes in code path and zero need to know anything about the underlying rendering model. Therefore, any remotely modern version of X.org is by definition not network transparent since every since modern local rendering technique such as DRI and compositing is completely incompatible with the fallback socket-based path that is used for networking remote X programs. Consequently, modern X is not network transparent and people who can't understand that just because it is still possible to send X pixmaps over a network socket in a kludgy manner does not mean X is "transparent" should maybe do some research on how X actually works instead of hurling insults.

        Modern X-remoting is effectively pushing pixmaps over a socket in an inefficient manner. It is fundamentally different than the modern composited rendering path that effectively bypasses 99.9% of the original X server and is where Wayland is going. Additionally, if X were so beautifully perfect at network transparency then using it over a WAN connection wouldn't be one of the leading causes of suicide in network administrators and proxies like NX would never have come into existence.

      Where "Me" includes the X.org developers including Keith Packard BTW.

      You: "I MADE PRETTY PICTURES GO OVAR INTARNETS!! DARR!! NETWORK TRANSPARENT! SINCE SOME TYPES OF RDP ONLY TRANSFER DESKTOPS NOT INVIDUAL WINDOWS RDP NOT NETWORK TRANSPARENT!! DAR!!! X DEVELOPERS ARE STOOPID AND DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT X!!! DAR!!"

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    6. Re:Network Transparency ... solved by e70838 · · Score: 1

      As a real people who uses X every days, I can ensure you I have no idea where are the computers that runs the programs that are clients of my display. In fact most of these computers are virtual machines. network transparency has been the first feature of X since many years and the third main Windows program (after Word and putty) I use has been hummingbird exceed, or Xming or reflection X.

    7. Re:Network Transparency ... solved by dbIII · · Score: 1

      RDP can be implemented using Wayland too you know,

      Personally I think we should save the "Wayland is better than X at everything" stuff until it HAS been implemented. Not doing so makes me associate Wayland with some of the more clueless idiot fanboys on this site no matter what the current merits of Wayland are.

    8. Re:Network Transparency ... solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At some point in the stack it's obviously not transparent since there's going to be completely different code paths, but at the layer the application developer engages, it's transparent.

      I can write an "X" based application using QT, KDE, gtk, or other APIs and it'll run local or remote with zero code changes.

    9. Re:Network Transparency ... solved by Uecker · · Score: 1

      Network transparency means that applications can render graphics to a local terminal or over a network with zero changes in code path and zero need to know anything about the underlying rendering model. Therefore, any remotely modern version of X.org is by definition not network transparent since every since modern local rendering technique such as DRI and compositing is completely incompatible with the fallback socket-based path that is used for networking
      remote X programs.

      No, you are confusing various things. DRI and compositing are different concepts. XRender is perfectly network transparent. OpenGL can also be used over the network via GLX. DRI allows direct access to graphics hardware and is not network transparent, but this is an optimization for local use.

      Consequently, modern X is not network transparent and people who can't understand that just because it is still possible to send X pixmaps over a network socket in a kludgy manner does not mean X is "transparent" should maybe do some research on how X actually works instead of hurling insults.

      glass house, stones, etc.

    10. Re:Network Transparency ... solved by mehemiah · · Score: 1

      sorry this reply is so late. I think this is what you're looking for.

    11. Re:Network Transparency ... solved by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I'll check it out.

      Couple of quick questions, if you would allow.

      From the description it seem to require special RDP server (FreeRDP 1.0). Is that so? Or would it work with the plane Win7 remote desktop service? (Fastest for me to test.) (I'm not sure that our RHEL boxes have the RDP service at all.)

      Does it support several connections/applications in parallel? The normal Windows RDP allows only one connection, kicking out previous connection is necessary.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
  12. They get it by TuringTest · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They have a main webpage with a clean design, and they explain what they do and why anyone in the target audience should care, without falling prey to corporate-speak. That alone bests more than 90% of previous desktop environments, yet is the bare minimum than any user-facing project should have. Plus, the FAQ and About pages actually explain their motivations rather than a few obscure technical details.

    That "operating system, a suite of software that makes your computer run" made me shed tears of joy.

    --
    Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    1. Re:They get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The web page didn't work on my nexus 7. The about pulldown opened, by the links to FAQ didn't open.

    2. Re:They get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "operating system, a suite of software that makes your computer run"

      Just think of it like an office suite, but for computers.

  13. Screenshots? by christurkel · · Score: 3

    Are there any screenshots available? I can't seem to find any.

    --

    CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
    1. Re:Screenshots? by normaldotcom · · Score: 5, Informative

      There are a few screenshots available on the Maui Project site: http://www.maui-project.org/#showcase

    2. Re:Screenshots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scroll down on their front page.

    3. Re:Screenshots? by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      No problem bro, I got you covered.

      Hawaii Desktop images

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    4. Re:Screenshots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you.

      I like it. It looks like Windows 7 had sex with an android tablet. It may be the beard on my neck talking, but with Hawaii leading the way 2014 could possibly be the year of the Linux desktop.

  14. Re:... really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right. Because we all know that Windows has the majority marketshare simply because there is only ever 1 piece of software for any single purpose. No one has ever needed to do something different or improve upon predecessors. You are totally not talking out of your ass in the slightest.

    Also, I'm batman.

  15. Re:... really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But their planning to release another compositor too, oh my god, I can't wait.

  16. More like 66%...Yes Really? by tuppe666 · · Score: 0

    Awesome. Another splinter in the already fractured 1% of PCs running Linux. That's how you win the market over.

    You have not been paying attention. Linux installs outweigh windows 3 Times. Apple and Microsoft are giving the computing market away.

    1. Re:More like 66%...Yes Really? by realityimpaired · · Score: 2

      Don't think it's fair to count Android devices as Linux, given that it's a very closed platform and doesn't have any of the basic functionality that most of us expect from a desktop operating system.

      Though given the direction Microsoft and Apple seem to want to go with their desktop systems... maybe in a couple of years it'll be a fair comparison. :)

    2. Re:More like 66%...Yes Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's very fair, given that it uses the *LINUX* kernel.

      Openness doesn't mean shit. Windows is a very closed platform. Would you say that makes Windows not count? No, that would be absurd.

  17. The Right Desktop is.... by tuppe666 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Another Desktop??? Can't we focus on getting ONE right?

    If only Windows 8 users had that option; how many would have taken it? I have moved from a full time Gnome User(Driven away by Gnome Shell) to KDE(Great Applications\Themeing....Poor Desktop) to XFCE(Like Gnome 2 at its best, with some cravats/advantages).

    The bottom line is there may not be One right, maybe many rights and many wrongs. Android is a great Phone OS but I would not like to use it full time as my Desktop...but to have access to its large catalogue of touchscreen games on GNU/Linux I would kill for, and there is no reason they can't run in a tradition WIMP environment.

    1. Re:The Right Desktop is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only Windows 8 users had that option; how many would have taken it?

      Are you seriously advocating choice for the end user? No wonder you were modded as a Troll. Everyone knows that:
      - large companies know what's best for everyone.
      - what works for others should be good enough for you.
      - relying on tried and true legacy technologies is the only way to stay current.
      - all these people wasting their time trying to create more options for more people are wasting their time.
      - we never should have left the Bronze Age.

    2. Re: The Right Desktop is.... by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Some cravats?

    3. Re:The Right Desktop is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alternate shells have existed for Windows for more than a decade and a half. Nothing is more amusing than hearing some Loonix turd prattle on about how Windows users have no other shell choices and then list a bunch of worth Loonix DEs.

    4. Re: The Right Desktop is.... by pr0nbot · · Score: 1

      I guess when he rated the desktops it was a tie.

  18. Re:... really? by BosstonesOwn · · Score: 1

    servers sir don't need desktops ! and there we have high penetration, unfortunately companies are starting to right gui only installers for linux, we the server geeks don't want a damn desktop on our servers. we want to squeeze as much performance as we can out of the hardware !

    --
    This package Does Not Contain a Winner
  19. Bad Marketing for Adaptation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If they want people to try their they should atleast include an ISO. Sadly no ISO is available, so why will people waste time compiling the thing ?

    1. Re:Bad Marketing for Adaptation by MrEricSir · · Score: 2

      You mean like the image you get by going to their home page and clicking the download link?

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    2. Re:Bad Marketing for Adaptation by fnj · · Score: 1

      If they want people to try their they should atleast include an ISO. Sadly no ISO is available, so why will people waste time compiling the thing ?

      Is there a joke I am not getting? There is a download button on the front page that takes you right to a link for the Live ISO, along with instructions for how to burn the CD, if for some reason you want to be last century and not just use a USB flash image.

    3. Re:Bad Marketing for Adaptation by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Others have pointed out the existence of a download link, so allow me to point out that the project is at release 0.2. If you aren't willing to compile something at that release level, you should probably stay away from it.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:Bad Marketing for Adaptation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must be hard paying attention to details, http://www.maui-project.org/download/, Version: 0.0.2_20130528. The Git Version is 0.2.0. So where's the update ISO exactly ?

  20. Re:Overrated and Abusive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's abusive! I only need a needle and a few kilometers of paper.

  21. Boring WIMP by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

    No its good old fashioned WIMP. The menu button shows large icons which is rubbish, but this is definitely a Desktop not a tablet interface.

    They have pictures and everything.

  22. Re:Overrated and Abusive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bah!

    Stone tablet + chisel!

  23. Whats new here? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

    Why is it news that someone created yet another Linux distro with yet another permutation of packages? Why is it impressive that Hawaii "features a dynamic, flicker free and fast system"?

    The summary mentions that theres potentially a new DE here, why are there no details on it?

  24. Re:Overrated and Abusive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    blasphemy! i only need yourmama

  25. Correct Horse Hawaii Desktop Stable Released? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Headline fail! Too garbled! Try:

    "New 'Hawaii' Desktop Environment Released, Powered by QE2 and Wayland"

    This alternate headline doesn't take up much more room, and is more comprehensible. I still don't know what it is talking about, but the words parse - Hawaii is not a state, it's a code-name for a desktop, and "stable" has nothing to do with horses. I don't know what Qt 5.2 is, but that's not material information for a headline. Wayland is some kind of controversial thing, so I guess that's why it is included.

    1. Re:Correct Horse Hawaii Desktop Stable Released? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tl;dr

      Poster found out about this site on reddit, digg, or, more likely, facebook, and doesn't understand elementary nerd/geek stuff. Thought, perhaps, there were girls here.

  26. Too many cooks in the kitchen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With as many people with differing ideas collaborating in an agressive manor that places ego over function? It's never going to happen. The slow adoption of Linux has a lot to do with this problem. Sometimes you really do need an authoritative figure to tell everyone to shut the fuck up and do it this way.

  27. Re:... really? by armanox · · Score: 1

    That, and it seems like the biggest headaches (but not all of them, systemd how I hate thee) are desktop related.

    --
    I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
  28. Re:Javascript will topple c or c++ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could c or c++ when doing web development but then you would be "misunderstood" because that is normal correct behavior procedure ethics standards...

  29. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe that was sarcasm

  30. Wayland hasn't died yet? by fikx · · Score: 1

    Another post mentioning Wayland...I still have hope it will die a quiet death so the Linux GUI can get back on track...

    --
    AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM
    1. Re:Wayland hasn't died yet? by caseih · · Score: 2

      And what track is this?

      Please watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIctzAQOe44 before you comment on Wayland.

    2. Re:Wayland hasn't died yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the love of God. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. A 45 minute video? I watched the first 8 minutes until he said, well, enough about me, let's talk about X and Wayland...

      For Heavens sake, if you are trying to make a point just make and stop wasting everyone's time.

    3. Re:Wayland hasn't died yet? by fikx · · Score: 1

      Watched it a long time ago. Doesn't change the fact that Wayland is a step backwards.

      --
      AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM
  31. Re:Missed opportunity by HiThere · · Score: 1

    For who?

    For me the year of the Linux desktop was around 2000. (Red Hat 4.2) This was largely because of license changes by MS, but that was the year I switched over to Linux. My wife was already on Apple. Her year of the Linux desktop was around 2007. Because of changes in the Apple licensing, which meant that I no longer felt willing to do support work on an Apple system. And also because the music score editing programs on Linux had reached a bare minimum of acceptability. (She's still quite unsatisfied.)

    For other people, other considerations apply. I doubt that it will EVER be the choice for all desktop users, unless other groups stop making desktop systems.

    P.S.: The Linux desktop environment has deteriorated markedly over the last two years. The peak thus far was will late editions of KDE3. Gnome2 was acceptable. Currently I'm using a Debian LXDE, and my wife is using an Ubuntu-lts flavored KDE.

    P.P.S: My neighbors across the street use Apple. They don't seem to have any fewer problems than does my wife, but it's generally things like "the keyboard is turned off", which I can asist them with without agreeing to an Apple EULA.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  32. Re:Missed opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The entire reason I do not own a tablet (aside from a 64gb HP Touchpad given to me) is that I like to do actual work. ... If I knew that I could buy a Nexus blah blah or a Samsung tab umpteen and install an actual Linux OS, which was designed with a proper touch interface, I would be all over it.
    Just think, being able to run a full office suite and run programs in a, I know it's crazy, window!

    Then why don't you install Mer and Plasma Active on your HP touchpad? Or ubuntu (not touch) with active or e17?

  33. Cannot be run on VirtualBox by functor0 · · Score: 2

    I going to try it but no QEMU or VirtualBox support yet.

  34. Apart from looking at pictures of pretty women wea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I prefer working at Unix terminal sessions.

  35. However you don't get it by dbIII · · Score: 1

    That "operating system, a suite of software that makes your computer run" made me shed tears of joy.

    The Judge threw that rubbish out in Microsoft vs Netscape and went with the textbook definition instead. It looks like the "beige box is the hard drive" crowd have won.

    1. Re:However you don't get it by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      That definition is not intended to win trials here, nor to be used in any technical context. Their choice of words means that their target audience is not the stereotypical Slashdot crowd.

      It implies that we can install this environment to our families, and still hope to use it ourselves. Some of us believe it's a good thing, that the people who think "the beige box is the hard drive" can use computers. But not many developers know how to make a computer that they can use; making software easy to use is much more difficult than most programmers realize.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    2. Re:However you don't get it by dbIII · · Score: 1

      nor to be used in any technical context

      Fair enough - so wrong makes you very happy for some reason. It don't get it. Why go for the weasel version invented to try to win a court case?

    3. Re:However you don't get it by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      Because it conveys the right message for the people hearing it. That's why MS used it -it's a very good definition for someone who doesn't program computers for a living. MS tried to derail the trail by dumbing down the tech details, which shouldn't have been done at the Court. This doesn't mean that hiding tech details is always wrong.

      End users don't get any direct benefit from the OS- it's a tool for the developers, so users don't require any detail about it's inner working; they literally don't need to know how an OS in order to accomplish their goals when using the computer.

      Users only interact with the shell, the package system and maybe the file system; and those do not strictly belong to the OS, but are just applications bundled with it. And those are precisely the parts described in TFA.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    4. Re:However you don't get it by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      s/trail/trial/
      s/know how an OS /know how an OS works /

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    5. Re:However you don't get it by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I get it - convenient lies to children such as saying the sky is blue because of dust (as in loosely related to the real reason but dumbed down). It just seems a bit out of place since the target audience at this point appears to be developers.

    6. Re:However you don't get it by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      Sort of. I wouldn't call it a lie but, as it's true that all modern applications (the only parts of the computer the user interacts with) depend on the operating system to work.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
  36. No dice Eliza :) by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Please read my comment again, especially the portion in brackets. By not reading it you failed the test your handle is named after :)

  37. X works on my operating system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assuming you're running OS X?

  38. Please! No BS like semantic desktop, strigi, nepof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please! No bull shit like "semantic desktop", strigi and nepomuk horrors, some lunatics from KDE have invented and then forced it down to it's users throats.
    What a wonderful way to ruin KDE.