Thanks for the info. I'll do some more specific research on video tearing before the next big X11/Wayland fight. =)
One hypothesis could be that it works on your system because some coder put in a heroic effort, and the video is rendered by some ugly mess which bypasses as much of X11 as possible, and cannot be consistently implemented (yes, pure guesswork). Point being: the solution could be a bigger nightmare than the problem, maintenance-wise.
Well, it's not as big as it used to be, especially not as a percentage of the largest ones.
Of course that still means a lot of users, but in today's capitalism it's probably an obvious gamble to try to make it "even larger", even while risking a complete meltdown.
Second, nobody's arguing for "one size fits all". X11 proponents who point out that Wayland will not be as functional as X11 are pointing out that there are things we use that X11 has that Wayland will ditch.
I'm pretty sure someone does argue for that! Or I at least hope so (tell me if we've read my "fits all" line differently!).
I get the impression you like X11 (to the point of labelling supporters of something else "anti-X11"). X11 currently works for some, doesn't work for others.
The way I see it, X11 has to work for everyone, or be replaced for many sets of users. Currently some users are having problems with running a modern desktop because of it. The only options for a smoother experience are closed source operating systems. Basically, unless X11 can work for everyone, people will create an OSS option.
I have a hard time being convinced by your idea of one-to-one feature replacement. It would basically mean copying a system which is originally from 1984. Even with a rewrite, it's still "keep everything and add more on top". When has including as many old features as possible ever made a project work better? The difference between your optimism here and your pessimism about Wayland's actual code development is pretty stark. In reality, we do not yet know what the result will be.
There comes a point where the different desired features cannot be reconciled: it's probably possible to code a network transparent 4K video display system in principle. However, in practice it will just output junk, even with tomorrow's networks.
So.. WTF is tearing????? And why do I have to lose my network transparency to get rid of it?????
Tearing is when video doesn't look like one picture seamlessly replacing the previous one. It's most obvious when vertical lines are moving horizontally in video: the vertical lines will seem to "dance", with different parts of them moving at visibly different speed (they tremble a bit). It's a problem caused by the horisontal lines of the images being out of synch. Even when it isn't specifically visible, it will make video seem more choppy. It's not bad enough to bother everyone.
I can't give the specific code reason for this: I'm not a coder. However, as I understand it, this problem is tricky or impossible to solve consistently under X11, simply due to complexity and it not being built for showing high-resolution video.
Also supposedly, network transparency puts a lot of demands on the server, so implementing that and modern graphics in the same package is not easy. I don't really know why Wayland lacks integrated network transparency, though. Could be that they just decided to omit it for all I know.
Pretty much anyone who's over the age of 30 who's been involved in software development for any substantial period of time knows that Wayland isn't going to solve it, and that in five years it'll be just as hacky and ugly as X11 is perceived to be - with the added bonus that it won't be anything like as powerful (because by design it won't - I'm serious, they're removing most of X11's core feature set, including the network transparency.)
I think they've realised something that a lot of X11 proponents haven't: that a one-size-fits-all solution won't work anymore.
I'm a desktop Linux user. I am not a sysadmin, and never will be. I have not used network transparency and likely never will.
I use fullscreen video daily, on the other hand. It has tearing. Switching from Ubuntu on a good desktop to Windows on a sucky netbook feels like an improvement video-wise, and that's not how it should be.
The people who have the most to lose from a switch to Wayland are the same people that have the power to choose their own display server. The ones who can't make the switch manually are the same people who will gain from it, on the other hand.
Looking at things from my perspective, I'm glad people are working on a better desktop experience. If anyone wonders why they're ignoring your network transparency...well, that's what a lot of people are doing about better video. There are two camps, and neither has a solution that works for both.
Wind and solar look great if you compare nameplate capacity and ignore the variability. In reality though, getting useful power out of them is pure fantasy unless you have pumped hydro available nearby, and even then it is not competitive.
In reality, there are electricity users that are just fine with following a schedule. You seem to assume that the default everywhere is factories running constantly.
If there's a plant nearby which generates electricity out of thin air, you can bet people will find a use for it. I find the idea of electricity produced during the workday being useless pretty surprising - how could someone *not* find a use for it?
Not a biased piece at all. Never would have thought so with ''slaughter'' in the headline/s
Without commenting on the bias, what word should they use? (I'm assuming that's/sarcasm at the end there)
The dolphins will be killed for meat. The word for killing animals for food is "slaughter". In fact, using that word makes it very clear that they are just animals: the reason it's a strong word when used about human violence is that its meaning then becomes "killed like mere animals".
That story sounds totally believable to me. I used Ganymede as a focusing aid yesterday (mirrorless camera, overwhelmed by Jupiter's brightness). If I can use a planet-sized moon as a focusing aid, I have no problem believing that a guy like that used a bird's eye for telescope testing. : )
If people (or more likely corporations) are ideologically opposed to contributing back to the communtiy because they dont want to mix "their valuable IP" with the communities IP then are a dead weight to us.
And yet even there they are doing something good by using it. This is especially true of FOSS frameworks, libraries, etc. The more jobs that use them, the more value knowing the work becomes and that means you attract more potential contributors. Besides, at some point you run into situations like when Microsoft decided to add intellisense support to jQuery and build solid support into Visual Studio. Then a lot of these people suddenly stiffen up when a company with that clout decides to throw in some of its IP lot with the project.
I agree 100%: just look at Photoshop. Imagine where it would be today had Adobe somehow managed to eliminate all piracy. The answer is, probably in pro use, like it is now. But normal people would have needed something else, and that would have been a competitor. It could even have meant normal people using GIMP more. Who knows, maybe it could have been a blessing for GIMP, leading to more contributors, more pro-level features...
A big userbase makes software stronger. Who cares if some user has the wrong ideology, if he's using your software? Only those who break the license are a problem.
They are horrible and yet their fanboys will mob you and rip you limb from limb in a heartbeat if you question their absolute superiority for any and all applications.
Shocked? Authoritarianism is deeply engrained in human psychology. This is sad but it's not shocking.
Nice, the situation is completely black-and-white, isn't it? Anyone disagreeing with you is a violent fanboy, are they?
You're doing the same thing as those supposed fanboys with your blanket dismissal. Neither technology is horrible. Incandescents are really inefficient, whereas CFLs are more toxic and fragile.
If you want to get a lot of light for little power (or just a lot of light), incandescents can't beat CFLs. If you need a continuous spectrum, then incandescents can't be beat.
A correctly-installed CFL will save a lot of money compared to an incandescent, and avoid the hassle of changing bulbs constantly. Airtight, hot fixtures will cause problems, on the other hand, and you can't use CFLs in an oven of course.
Both technologies have many strengths and weaknesses: there's no reason to pretend otherwise.
But, I can't make a lightbulb post without hammering the points: CFLs are evil, expensive, toxic, and they don't last anywhere near as long as the packaging claims. I only see them as an effort by the lightbulb industry to get consumers to inflate the value of bulbs in their mind, because the 10 pack of 60W bulbs for $2.50 were obviously not making anyone much money.
Because of the mercury I'm looking forward to LEDs replacing all other lights, which has already started happening.
However, your complaints sound like you've been buying cheap CFLs, at least if the market is anything like it is in Finland. I've bought expensive (up to ten euros) CFLs of two or three different brands, and I can't remember which year I bought a single one of them, they last that long. Even these expensive ones save money, while giving more light. I'm picky about light colour, too, and my Philips bulbs give good, warm colour.
None of my fixtures support the wattage necessary to get the light I'm getting now. I get more light for less money, and avoid the hassle of changing a bulb every year.
I hope you're wrong, and the good CFLs exist there too. That said, even the best ones are not for all applications, and LEDs will certainly be an improvement. Until then, I will be saving money every day.
X.org needs a major rework; X11 was a solution for a slightly different set of problems than we have today, but just because it might not be the right specific solution now, does not be something else automatically is or that the fundamental concepts behind X are wrong.
However, even assuming X11 is fundamentally sound, it does not necessarily follow that the best solution is rewriting it. Writing even a good new thing may be more efficient.
If you want the UNIX/Linux world to enjoy the sort of success Windows did in the 95-2005 years its about catering to the centralization, decentralization cycle and having a modern ( ie not X11, but maybe an X12) display solution that is hardware independent, portable, and network transparent absolutely is the thing to do. Plan for 2015 - 2025 rather than trying to implement the ideas and compromises of 1995. Wayland and Mir are backward looking.
I think it's important to remember that MS didn't really know what they should be doing - except for the NT kernel, which I hear is beautiful.
Until XP arrived, desktops used 95, 98 and ME. 98 would last about a day on my box before crashing, while 2000 pretty much just didn't crash on the same hardware. 95 shipped without TCP/IP, and Microsoft pushed their own non-Internet network before they had to give up. XP was not ready for what the net was to become, and suffered inexcusable security problems.
My point is pretty much this: one can not predict the future, and sometimes sloppy work gives good results. Writing good code and providing something which does well at *something* is all anyone can do. Trying to do everything well WILL fail, however.
If Wayland gives better fullscreen video, then I'd like that. Someone running a server won't have to do the same, though - it's not like X11 will disappear at the first sight of Wayland success.
While the Russians may severely dislike homosexuality, to the point of criminalizing it, at least they're honest about it. They don't pretend to be against discrimination, while simultaneously engaging in it, like the political correctness crowed constantly does.
Two wrongs still don't make a right.
Also, there is no uniform "political correctness crowd", and you didn't provide a single example of its supposed discriminatory actions.
At least according to http://theodoregray.com/periodictable/Elements/031/index.s7.html gallium and at least some of its alloys are really sticky, leaving residue on most anything. "Unfortunately, it stains your hands and is hard to get off, so I don't recommend it. In fact, it stains or sticks to just about anything, which is very irritating because it would otherwise make a very nice substitute for mercury where a liquid metal is called for."
I've used one of those gallium-containing fake-mercury thermometers myself, and after a few uses the liquid metal got stuck to the glass tube, and it never worked again. They could have made some better alloy of it or something, but that's not mentioned in the abstract, at least.
(Also, someone is actually using Medium? Impressive, I was compelled to use it for a course, and it was the most dead "social network" I've ever seen.)
Okay. For my part, I'll assume you don't really know a lot on the topic, and fill in the gaps with abuse of your fellow posters.
If this is not true, then well, I honestly wish you'd manage to communicate as much. Corporate personhood exists, and it's a given that it therefore leads to problems, just like any other thing.
However, if you reply at all, it will likely just be another post that's arrogant and devoid of information, such as the one I'm replying to right now. If you know so much, why do you not share your knowledge?
Slashdot Mirror
Hello, everyone.
Now is the time: if you have some comment/thread you really like, accesible through search or bookmark, then you should
SAVE THE POST OR THREAD!
With the direction things are going, they may very well disable linking to posts. We may lose the Slashdot archive!
There's no way to back it all up, but we *can* preserve the gems. So, save the good stuff so it won't disappear!
Thanks for the info. I'll do some more specific research on video tearing before the next big X11/Wayland fight. =)
One hypothesis could be that it works on your system because some coder put in a heroic effort, and the video is rendered by some ugly mess which bypasses as much of X11 as possible, and cannot be consistently implemented (yes, pure guesswork). Point being: the solution could be a bigger nightmare than the problem, maintenance-wise.
Well, it's not as big as it used to be, especially not as a percentage of the largest ones.
Of course that still means a lot of users, but in today's capitalism it's probably an obvious gamble to try to make it "even larger", even while risking a complete meltdown.
Second, nobody's arguing for "one size fits all". X11 proponents who point out that Wayland will not be as functional as X11 are pointing out that there are things we use that X11 has that Wayland will ditch.
I'm pretty sure someone does argue for that! Or I at least hope so (tell me if we've read my "fits all" line differently!).
I get the impression you like X11 (to the point of labelling supporters of something else "anti-X11"). X11 currently works for some, doesn't work for others.
The way I see it, X11 has to work for everyone, or be replaced for many sets of users. Currently some users are having problems with running a modern desktop because of it. The only options for a smoother experience are closed source operating systems. Basically, unless X11 can work for everyone, people will create an OSS option.
I have a hard time being convinced by your idea of one-to-one feature replacement. It would basically mean copying a system which is originally from 1984. Even with a rewrite, it's still "keep everything and add more on top". When has including as many old features as possible ever made a project work better? The difference between your optimism here and your pessimism about Wayland's actual code development is pretty stark. In reality, we do not yet know what the result will be.
There comes a point where the different desired features cannot be reconciled: it's probably possible to code a network transparent 4K video display system in principle. However, in practice it will just output junk, even with tomorrow's networks.
So.. WTF is tearing????? And why do I have to lose my network transparency to get rid of it?????
Tearing is when video doesn't look like one picture seamlessly replacing the previous one. It's most obvious when vertical lines are moving horizontally in video: the vertical lines will seem to "dance", with different parts of them moving at visibly different speed (they tremble a bit). It's a problem caused by the horisontal lines of the images being out of synch. Even when it isn't specifically visible, it will make video seem more choppy. It's not bad enough to bother everyone.
I can't give the specific code reason for this: I'm not a coder. However, as I understand it, this problem is tricky or impossible to solve consistently under X11, simply due to complexity and it not being built for showing high-resolution video.
Also supposedly, network transparency puts a lot of demands on the server, so implementing that and modern graphics in the same package is not easy. I don't really know why Wayland lacks integrated network transparency, though. Could be that they just decided to omit it for all I know.
Don't forget Greased Yoda if you do. Slashdot Beta deserves it.
Pretty much anyone who's over the age of 30 who's been involved in software development for any substantial period of time knows that Wayland isn't going to solve it, and that in five years it'll be just as hacky and ugly as X11 is perceived to be - with the added bonus that it won't be anything like as powerful (because by design it won't - I'm serious, they're removing most of X11's core feature set, including the network transparency.)
I think they've realised something that a lot of X11 proponents haven't: that a one-size-fits-all solution won't work anymore.
I'm a desktop Linux user. I am not a sysadmin, and never will be. I have not used network transparency and likely never will.
I use fullscreen video daily, on the other hand. It has tearing. Switching from Ubuntu on a good desktop to Windows on a sucky netbook feels like an improvement video-wise, and that's not how it should be.
The people who have the most to lose from a switch to Wayland are the same people that have the power to choose their own display server. The ones who can't make the switch manually are the same people who will gain from it, on the other hand.
Looking at things from my perspective, I'm glad people are working on a better desktop experience. If anyone wonders why they're ignoring your network transparency...well, that's what a lot of people are doing about better video. There are two camps, and neither has a solution that works for both.
You're basically saying that India is corrupt, so a new project has to be literally all about corruption.
You support this idea by basically saying that the US will always be the first to do any beneficial thing, even when the return isn't great.
If you're trolling, you're not doing an entertaining enough job of it.
Wind and solar look great if you compare nameplate capacity and ignore the variability. In reality though, getting useful power out of them is pure fantasy unless you have pumped hydro available nearby, and even then it is not competitive.
In reality, there are electricity users that are just fine with following a schedule. You seem to assume that the default everywhere is factories running constantly.
If there's a plant nearby which generates electricity out of thin air, you can bet people will find a use for it. I find the idea of electricity produced during the workday being useless pretty surprising - how could someone *not* find a use for it?
It could look like anything for all I care, if it *worked*.
But the beta is a huge discussion functionality downgrade. Might as well read comments on Ars Technica to get that masochist interface kick...
Not a biased piece at all. Never would have thought so with ''slaughter'' in the headline /s
Without commenting on the bias, what word should they use? (I'm assuming that's /sarcasm at the end there)
The dolphins will be killed for meat. The word for killing animals for food is "slaughter". In fact, using that word makes it very clear that they are just animals: the reason it's a strong word when used about human violence is that its meaning then becomes "killed like mere animals".
That story sounds totally believable to me. I used Ganymede as a focusing aid yesterday (mirrorless camera, overwhelmed by Jupiter's brightness). If I can use a planet-sized moon as a focusing aid, I have no problem believing that a guy like that used a bird's eye for telescope testing. : )
I have heard of Dobsonian *mounts*, as opposed to telescopes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobsonian_telescope#Dobson.27s_design_innovations
Now you have heard of both.
I *did* start my day by putting words in your mouth. I'm sorry about that.
I stand by what I said about calling either technology "horrible" though. Although we seen to agree more or less on that...
If people (or more likely corporations) are ideologically opposed to contributing back to the communtiy because they dont want to mix "their valuable IP" with the communities IP then are a dead weight to us.
And yet even there they are doing something good by using it. This is especially true of FOSS frameworks, libraries, etc. The more jobs that use them, the more value knowing the work becomes and that means you attract more potential contributors. Besides, at some point you run into situations like when Microsoft decided to add intellisense support to jQuery and build solid support into Visual Studio. Then a lot of these people suddenly stiffen up when a company with that clout decides to throw in some of its IP lot with the project.
I agree 100%: just look at Photoshop. Imagine where it would be today had Adobe somehow managed to eliminate all piracy. The answer is, probably in pro use, like it is now. But normal people would have needed something else, and that would have been a competitor. It could even have meant normal people using GIMP more. Who knows, maybe it could have been a blessing for GIMP, leading to more contributors, more pro-level features...
A big userbase makes software stronger. Who cares if some user has the wrong ideology, if he's using your software? Only those who break the license are a problem.
Heh, angry much? Calm down, man. I couldn't even decipher your point, there was so much RAGE in the way.
They are horrible and yet their fanboys will mob you and rip you limb from limb in a heartbeat if you question their absolute superiority for any and all applications.
Shocked? Authoritarianism is deeply engrained in human psychology. This is sad but it's not shocking.
Nice, the situation is completely black-and-white, isn't it? Anyone disagreeing with you is a violent fanboy, are they?
You're doing the same thing as those supposed fanboys with your blanket dismissal. Neither technology is horrible. Incandescents are really inefficient, whereas CFLs are more toxic and fragile.
If you want to get a lot of light for little power (or just a lot of light), incandescents can't beat CFLs. If you need a continuous spectrum, then incandescents can't be beat.
A correctly-installed CFL will save a lot of money compared to an incandescent, and avoid the hassle of changing bulbs constantly. Airtight, hot fixtures will cause problems, on the other hand, and you can't use CFLs in an oven of course.
Both technologies have many strengths and weaknesses: there's no reason to pretend otherwise.
You're really upset about the mercury in conventional fluorescents too, right?
But, I can't make a lightbulb post without hammering the points: CFLs are evil, expensive, toxic, and they don't last anywhere near as long as the packaging claims. I only see them as an effort by the lightbulb industry to get consumers to inflate the value of bulbs in their mind, because the 10 pack of 60W bulbs for $2.50 were obviously not making anyone much money.
Because of the mercury I'm looking forward to LEDs replacing all other lights, which has already started happening.
However, your complaints sound like you've been buying cheap CFLs, at least if the market is anything like it is in Finland. I've bought expensive (up to ten euros) CFLs of two or three different brands, and I can't remember which year I bought a single one of them, they last that long. Even these expensive ones save money, while giving more light. I'm picky about light colour, too, and my Philips bulbs give good, warm colour.
None of my fixtures support the wattage necessary to get the light I'm getting now. I get more light for less money, and avoid the hassle of changing a bulb every year.
I hope you're wrong, and the good CFLs exist there too. That said, even the best ones are not for all applications, and LEDs will certainly be an improvement. Until then, I will be saving money every day.
X.org needs a major rework; X11 was a solution for a slightly different set of problems than we have today, but just because it might not be the right specific solution now, does not be something else automatically is or that the fundamental concepts behind X are wrong.
However, even assuming X11 is fundamentally sound, it does not necessarily follow that the best solution is rewriting it. Writing even a good new thing may be more efficient.
If you want the UNIX/Linux world to enjoy the sort of success Windows did in the 95-2005 years its about catering to the centralization, decentralization cycle and having a modern ( ie not X11, but maybe an X12) display solution that is hardware independent, portable, and network transparent absolutely is the thing to do. Plan for 2015 - 2025 rather than trying to implement the ideas and compromises of 1995. Wayland and Mir are backward looking.
I think it's important to remember that MS didn't really know what they should be doing - except for the NT kernel, which I hear is beautiful.
Until XP arrived, desktops used 95, 98 and ME. 98 would last about a day on my box before crashing, while 2000 pretty much just didn't crash on the same hardware. 95 shipped without TCP/IP, and Microsoft pushed their own non-Internet network before they had to give up. XP was not ready for what the net was to become, and suffered inexcusable security problems.
My point is pretty much this: one can not predict the future, and sometimes sloppy work gives good results. Writing good code and providing something which does well at *something* is all anyone can do. Trying to do everything well WILL fail, however.
If Wayland gives better fullscreen video, then I'd like that. Someone running a server won't have to do the same, though - it's not like X11 will disappear at the first sight of Wayland success.
While the Russians may severely dislike homosexuality, to the point of criminalizing it, at least they're honest about it. They don't pretend to be against discrimination, while simultaneously engaging in it, like the political correctness crowed constantly does.
Two wrongs still don't make a right.
Also, there is no uniform "political correctness crowd", and you didn't provide a single example of its supposed discriminatory actions.
Send the network to prison for spreading the gay.
I'm sure a firewall could be arranged.
Yeah, but then they'll have to deal with the iconic Firewall Riot!
At least according to http://theodoregray.com/periodictable/Elements/031/index.s7.html gallium and at least some of its alloys are really sticky, leaving residue on most anything. "Unfortunately, it stains your hands and is hard to get off, so I don't recommend it. In fact, it stains or sticks to just about anything, which is very irritating because it would otherwise make a very nice substitute for mercury where a liquid metal is called for."
I've used one of those gallium-containing fake-mercury thermometers myself, and after a few uses the liquid metal got stuck to the glass tube, and it never worked again. They could have made some better alloy of it or something, but that's not mentioned in the abstract, at least.
(Also, someone is actually using Medium? Impressive, I was compelled to use it for a course, and it was the most dead "social network" I've ever seen.)
Did you notice that you advocated blatant corruption, just now?
Okay. For my part, I'll assume you don't really know a lot on the topic, and fill in the gaps with abuse of your fellow posters.
If this is not true, then well, I honestly wish you'd manage to communicate as much. Corporate personhood exists, and it's a given that it therefore leads to problems, just like any other thing.
However, if you reply at all, it will likely just be another post that's arrogant and devoid of information, such as the one I'm replying to right now. If you know so much, why do you not share your knowledge?