> ignored the need to efficiently *share* displays over the Internet (demerits for cluelessness if you reply and mention VNC); OS X and Windows got this capability back around 2000.
Are you kidding? This aspect of MacOS is why I object so loudly to Wayland. What MacOS has SUCKS. It's the best possible advertisement you could have for X11.
Whatever structural purity it might have on the inside, it fails miserably at one key feature of modern desktops (not just X).
It helps to actually USE MacOS before putting it on a pedestal.
The thing about Apple is that they have their own thing going. Despite the usual marketing rhetoric, MacOS X is not Unix. It is the latest version of MacOS which itself dates back to the early days of X11. Its an entirely different system. It's a different pile of legacy apps and legacy code.
It's a different set of expectations.
Whatever Apple chose, the appropriate thing was something that addressed the needs of people that were already using MacOS.
That's something that the Wayland cabal doesn't seem to get.
> They managed to create a much more efficient display engine
You couldn't tell this by running an actual Mac.
This cult of Apple admirers would be amusing if they weren't potentially so destructive. They seem to blindly follow Apple without actually having any real experience with the product. They just swallow the usual media hype wholesale and then go on to replicate Apple's mistakes.
They also don't understand how an X server relates to the rest of MacOS.
I can live with DRM for a rental service. I am more interested in features, performance, and usability. There are other reasons I would complain about Netflix before getting into the DRM.
Purchases on the other hand are an entirely different kettle of fish.
Microsoft wasn't in control. They were just leading Netflix down the garden path. That created a legacy support issue for desktops. This never happened with tablets because by that time everyone realized what a dud Silverlight was. Plus, Jobs didn't put up with that sort of thing in his little walled garden.
Apple became successful enough to undermine Microsoft's influence. (Adobe's too)
> It's quite simple. The difference is that a Chromebook has hardware support for DRM. Your generic Loonix "boxes" doesn't.
That's moronic. Most of the supported devices on the planet don't have any "special hardware support" and are quite capable of running Linux as well as whatever other operating systems have a supported Netflix client.
It's easier to follow the letter of the law than to think for yourself. It makes it easier for the mindless. It allows them an excuse to feel superior when they really not terribly thoughtful.
Compliance becomes a substitute for performance.
It's much like "attendance" being a substitute for performance.
I suspect the OP was being sarcastic and indirectly pointing out the key missing piece there that everyone seems to have forgotten. It's one of those key things that Wayland people in general tend to forget when they are pushing Wayland and bashing X.
Rendering the UI is really the least of your worries.
Your average HR lackey doesn't have people's lives in their hands.
Doctors do. So it's an entirely different kind of situation.
The idea that the process should be open to auditing shouldn't even be in question. Nor should the idea that doctors would be exposed to "code review" and examination by their peers.
If doctors think they are vulnerable to malpractice suits then clearly they are aware that their house needs to be cleaned. You can either put up with the dirty house (tort reform), or you can actually clean house and improve medical standards.
Of course doctors don't want their misdeeds and incompetence on display for all to see.
> There are legitimate gripes about access, copy protection, and copyright issues... but this doesn't come close to any of them.
Sure it does and you're a big fat jackass.
This is about some guy wanting to use the service he's paid for in the way he wants to use it. The service provider will let him use Windows but this guy doesn't want to do that because he finds that it sucks. He can't use alternatives and is stuck using one monopoly product to deal with another.
This whole "we need to encrypt everything" is nonsense. As soon as you paid for it, you should be able to use it however you like.
The path between the cable box and the TV should be all in the clear.
It's all a roll of the dice. It depends on what cable company you have. You may be lucky and all of the channels you watch are recordable, or everything may be locked down. Local branches of the same national franchise may even operate differently.
My local landline monopoly (Time Warner) is of the "encrypt it all" variety. Needless to say, I will never be their customer.
It only your response had any of that... common sense.
At my desk I have my PC and my phone. My mobile is in my pocket. Now it doesn't matter where this desk is or where my boss is. It doesn't matter if it's a cubicle next to my bosses office. It doesn't matter if it's in a cubicle farm on the other side of the country. It doesn't matter if it's in my home office.
If I am goofing off or unavailable, it doesn't matter where my phone or PC.
I wonder if the metric they were using would completely miss people that are constantly logged onto the VPN. What log were they looking at exactly? If I am logged in for more than 30 days at a time, would they think I never did any work?
Seems like a flawed and rather lazy approach to actually checking up on the actual work output of your employees.
Yes this jackass is politically motivated. That's the beauty of the American system. This goes ALL the way back to the beginning. If one party gets out of line with something like the Alien and Sedition acts, then the other party can pounce come the next election.
Personally I think that Cornyn is a big fat jackass that sends form letters to his real constituents that don't even attempt to hide is insistence on pandering to out of state interests. Although I am happy that our interests manage to align just this once.
Don't try to kid us with your claims that trademark in this case is being wielded to the benefit of the consumer. The consumer knows what's going on and wants a cheap knockoff. They would never buy the real thing anyway (for lack of funds). So they aren't really relevant to the poor aggrieved trademark owner.
You're focusing on the wrong "victim" here. No one cares about the overpriced designer. They can go to hell for all we care.
Genuine consumer protection issues are interesting but that's not what this is about. Although you will happily help muddle the issue for situations have have ZERO consumer protection concerns.
Fitting an array is pretty trivial on "typical user" desktops.
The main limiting factor will be your motherboard. Even that can be easily remedied with a $30 expansion card. Any external drive bays can be easily turned into hot swap bays and you can even mount stuff internally but that's much less convenient.
On the low profile corporate machine I am looking at right now, I could fit it with a dual bay hot swap 2.5 SATA rack.
The problem with that attitude is that the common rube likely doesn't need a particularly large drive either. If they aren't making the disk do interesting work, then they probably don't need a large one. They could probably just use a smaller SSD and avoid this kind of product entirely.
I am not particularly impressed with the idea of "all" of my data being cached. I expect any tiny cache to be quickly overwhelmed.
I think the real problem is contention. An SSD can help alleviate this by eliminating the physical wait associated with "context switching". We have systems that are more and more distributed. The one thing that hasn't kept up with that is storage. We still generally have a single write head trying to keep up with all of the things that processes running on 2 or 8 cores.
A process can have it's own CPU and quietly hammer it in the corner without being much bother but as soon as it touches the disk, then every other process in the system can be impacted.
I've seen things perk up just by having more conventional spindles.
Slashdot Mirror
> ignored the need to efficiently *share* displays over the Internet (demerits for cluelessness if you reply and mention VNC); OS X and Windows got this capability back around 2000.
Are you kidding? This aspect of MacOS is why I object so loudly to Wayland. What MacOS has SUCKS. It's the best possible advertisement you could have for X11.
Whatever structural purity it might have on the inside, it fails miserably at one key feature of modern desktops (not just X).
It helps to actually USE MacOS before putting it on a pedestal.
The Wayland cabal are trapped in 2000.
It would be much more convincing if Wozniak had said it.
Jobs is a glorified salesman.
The thing about Apple is that they have their own thing going. Despite the usual marketing rhetoric, MacOS X is not Unix. It is the latest version of MacOS which itself dates back to the early days of X11. Its an entirely different system. It's a different pile of legacy apps and legacy code.
It's a different set of expectations.
Whatever Apple chose, the appropriate thing was something that addressed the needs of people that were already using MacOS.
That's something that the Wayland cabal doesn't seem to get.
> They managed to create a much more efficient display engine
You couldn't tell this by running an actual Mac.
This cult of Apple admirers would be amusing if they weren't potentially so destructive. They seem to blindly follow Apple without actually having any real experience with the product. They just swallow the usual media hype wholesale and then go on to replicate Apple's mistakes.
They also don't understand how an X server relates to the rest of MacOS.
I can live with DRM for a rental service. I am more interested in features, performance, and usability. There are other reasons I would complain about Netflix before getting into the DRM.
Purchases on the other hand are an entirely different kettle of fish.
Microsoft wasn't in control. They were just leading Netflix down the garden path. That created a legacy support issue for desktops. This never happened with tablets because by that time everyone realized what a dud Silverlight was. Plus, Jobs didn't put up with that sort of thing in his little walled garden.
Apple became successful enough to undermine Microsoft's influence. (Adobe's too)
You keep on repeating that but it still doesn't make any more sense no matter how much you repeat it.
Your typical PC or Mac doesn't require such things. Why should an OS running another form factor?
An appliance being a pretty locked down and highly controlled environment actually needs LESS "extra special hardware DRM support" than a PC.
> It's quite simple. The difference is that a Chromebook has hardware support for DRM. Your generic Loonix "boxes" doesn't.
That's moronic. Most of the supported devices on the planet don't have any "special hardware support" and are quite capable of running Linux as well as whatever other operating systems have a supported Netflix client.
It's easier to follow the letter of the law than to think for yourself. It makes it easier for the mindless. It allows them an excuse to feel superior when they really not terribly thoughtful.
Compliance becomes a substitute for performance.
It's much like "attendance" being a substitute for performance.
> They don't teach slowing down for "stale" greens anymore? Damn, even I remember that from almost 40 years ago!
No. I think you're just making that up so you can take pleasure in being a sanctimonious jackass.
People like you are why we rebelled against England and why people continued going west afterwards.
I suspect the OP was being sarcastic and indirectly pointing out the key missing piece there that everyone seems to have forgotten. It's one of those key things that Wayland people in general tend to forget when they are pushing Wayland and bashing X.
Rendering the UI is really the least of your worries.
Your average HR lackey doesn't have people's lives in their hands.
Doctors do. So it's an entirely different kind of situation.
The idea that the process should be open to auditing shouldn't even be in question. Nor should the idea that doctors would be exposed to "code review" and examination by their peers.
Yes. Remove the liabllity.
Improve professional standards.
If doctors think they are vulnerable to malpractice suits then clearly they are aware that their house needs to be cleaned. You can either put up with the dirty house (tort reform), or you can actually clean house and improve medical standards.
Of course doctors don't want their misdeeds and incompetence on display for all to see.
> There are legitimate gripes about access, copy protection, and copyright issues... but this doesn't come close to any of them.
Sure it does and you're a big fat jackass.
This is about some guy wanting to use the service he's paid for in the way he wants to use it. The service provider will let him use Windows but this guy doesn't want to do that because he finds that it sucks. He can't use alternatives and is stuck using one monopoly product to deal with another.
This whole "we need to encrypt everything" is nonsense. As soon as you paid for it, you should be able to use it however you like.
The path between the cable box and the TV should be all in the clear.
It's all a roll of the dice. It depends on what cable company you have. You may be lucky and all of the channels you watch are recordable, or everything may be locked down. Local branches of the same national franchise may even operate differently.
My local landline monopoly (Time Warner) is of the "encrypt it all" variety. Needless to say, I will never be their customer.
> No music or video is worth jailtime.
When has that ever happened?
People get SUED for that sort of thing. The Gestapo doesn't come breaking down your door over music or video. They value it about as much as you do.
Low expectations are the death of the free market.
They're the death of liberty in general.
You must be one really sad little sheep.
It only your response had any of that... common sense.
At my desk I have my PC and my phone. My mobile is in my pocket. Now it doesn't matter where this desk is or where my boss is. It doesn't matter if it's a cubicle next to my bosses office. It doesn't matter if it's in a cubicle farm on the other side of the country. It doesn't matter if it's in my home office.
If I am goofing off or unavailable, it doesn't matter where my phone or PC.
They either get the job done or they don't.
Fixating on anything else is just an excuse for micromanagement and petty megalomania.
I wonder if the metric they were using would completely miss people that are constantly logged onto the VPN. What log were they looking at exactly? If I am logged in for more than 30 days at a time, would they think I never did any work?
Seems like a flawed and rather lazy approach to actually checking up on the actual work output of your employees.
Yes this jackass is politically motivated. That's the beauty of the American system. This goes ALL the way back to the beginning. If one party gets out of line with something like the Alien and Sedition acts, then the other party can pounce come the next election.
Personally I think that Cornyn is a big fat jackass that sends form letters to his real constituents that don't even attempt to hide is insistence on pandering to out of state interests. Although I am happy that our interests manage to align just this once.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
No one on Canal Street has any delusions.
Don't try to kid us with your claims that trademark in this case is being wielded to the benefit of the consumer. The consumer knows what's going on and wants a cheap knockoff. They would never buy the real thing anyway (for lack of funds). So they aren't really relevant to the poor aggrieved trademark owner.
You're focusing on the wrong "victim" here. No one cares about the overpriced designer. They can go to hell for all we care.
Genuine consumer protection issues are interesting but that's not what this is about. Although you will happily help muddle the issue for situations have have ZERO consumer protection concerns.
Fitting an array is pretty trivial on "typical user" desktops.
The main limiting factor will be your motherboard. Even that can be easily remedied with a $30 expansion card. Any external drive bays can be easily turned into hot swap bays and you can even mount stuff internally but that's much less convenient.
On the low profile corporate machine I am looking at right now, I could fit it with a dual bay hot swap 2.5 SATA rack.
The problem with that attitude is that the common rube likely doesn't need a particularly large drive either. If they aren't making the disk do interesting work, then they probably don't need a large one. They could probably just use a smaller SSD and avoid this kind of product entirely.
I am not particularly impressed with the idea of "all" of my data being cached. I expect any tiny cache to be quickly overwhelmed.
I think the real problem is contention. An SSD can help alleviate this by eliminating the physical wait associated with "context switching". We have systems that are more and more distributed. The one thing that hasn't kept up with that is storage. We still generally have a single write head trying to keep up with all of the things that processes running on 2 or 8 cores.
A process can have it's own CPU and quietly hammer it in the corner without being much bother but as soon as it touches the disk, then every other process in the system can be impacted.
I've seen things perk up just by having more conventional spindles.