These days people don't write X11 applications - they write QT apps or GTK apps.
or wx apps, or swing apps, or XUL apps, or FLTK apps, etc. Every one of those toolkits will have to be modified to provide network transparency. You just multiplied the amount of work by 6. And what if the toolkit authors don't want to do the extra work the Wayland devs are trying to push on them?
Or whatever transport Wayland provides which could involve shifting bitmap deltas around the network for each surface or extending the rendering pipeline to the client
Could? How about will? Every X11 app *will* be network transparent. Every Wayland app *could* be network transparent. See the difference?
True, but they were even bigger donors to Romney. Bad or worse. Your choice. I voted Green.
Thank you. A third party vote is the only defensible choice in this day an age. I don't care what third party you vote for, but if you vote for either major party you're part of the problem.
Then he's cool with gay sex now, right? The Catholic Church wants it both ways. Either Leviticus is obsolete, in which case the Pope can wear glasses and christians can have gay sex, or it still applies, and both gay sex and a pope with poor eyesight are abominations.
What's the official church stance on why one is OK and the other is an abomination? Do they even acknowledge the issue?
We already know who the financial terrorists are that are the biggest threat to our economy and national security. And they're all Obama donors.
Why does Obama need a financial monitoring network when he can't bother to throw Lloyd Blankfein in jail for well established fraud, perjury, and racketeering?
The point is not that it's not a niche. It's that its an important niche that Linux has served well for decades. Linux has always catered to power users with niche needs. It should not stop now.
Then don't use it FFS, use X11. Over Wayland. It's not rocket science to understand.
What do we do about native Wayland apps?
If it's not rocket science, explain that to me. The whole point of Wayland is to deprecate X11. If Wayland is successful, it will supplant X11 and people will not write X11 apps anymore.
So explain to me how running X11 over Wayland is a solution to the lack of network transparency in Wayland. If it's easy to understand, it must be easy to explain. So go ahead, explain it. Please! I really don't want to have to worry about this or bitch about this.
Sufficient development resources are available. There's nothing wrong with X11 as it exists today. My contributions to X.org won't do anything to stop Wayland from being developed. My incessant complaining might help stop Wayland from being adopted by distros that give a shit about their users. This is actually the most productive thing I can do in this situation.
I'm more than willing to put up or shut up. If the Wayland devs need resources to implement network transparency, then let them say so. They can put up a kickstarter and I'm sure it would be funded. I'd love to donate to such a cause, it would feel a lot better than bashing these people who I'm quite sure are well meaning. But they're simply not interested in network transparency. Bitching is my only real option.
Frankly, to me, the idea, that by switching to Wayland will somehow mean that you lose network transparency it just as absurd that by switching to X you lose OpenGL support
If you run an X program, you are guaranteed that network transparency is available. If you run an X program, you are not guaranteed that OpenGL is available. Saying that Wayland *can* support network transparency is insufficient. I should be able to *rely* on network transparency being available to arbitrary apps.
If I find someday that a Wayland app that I need is not network transparent, what should I do? That's never even been a cromulent question with regards to X.
So while Wayland itself will not support network transparency, the full stack surely will.
I hope you're right. But I'm not about to shut up about it until the "full stack" exists, has all the features X11 had, and performs better.
Then get the Wayland developers to guarantee that Wayland apps will be network transparent. Then we will shut up and you won't have to listen to us anymore. Until then, expect us to bitch every time Wayland is mentioned.
You have three options: -provide network transparency -give up and go home -put up with constant bitching
For the record, you're insisting that you bring forward obsolete mechanisms that 99.99% of end users will never use. Nobody outside a handful of sysadmins uses X network transparency, and only then I suspect to stroke their own egos.
You could say the same about Linux itself. Figure out why this statement is wrong when applied to Linux, and you'll understand why it's wrong when applied to network transparency.
For the record, as long as whatever display system we settle on provides network transparency for all applications, I don't care what's behind the hood.
Could it be that any of us "normal" types could find ourselves committing an outrage
We live in an outrageous world. When you eat a banana, you are rewarding slavers. When you vote Democrat or Republican, you get the blood of their wars on your hands. Don't think that you are so different from the criminally insane. Your murderous actions are only more socially acceptable.
There's is nothing liberal about this. It is simply conservative in the other direction. There is no significant difference between the people who would restrict freedom to protect women and the people who would restrict freedom to protect "the family". The people behind these proposals are as conservative as James Dobson and Focus on the Family, just a different flavor of conservative.
The harm done to my son from of this cannot be undone.
And this harm is so severe you're willing to abandon our most cherished liberty? People like you are why parents should be prohibited from voting. Get a grip.
Off on a tangent, one of the reasons America is so divided is too many people have tried to turn every question of policy into a constitutional issue and thus an issue for the courts.
If anything, the courts have not stepped in often enough. The government constantly violates every amendment except the third, and this lawlessness has been rubber stamped by the supreme court repeatedly. We desperately need a SCOTUS which will enforce the bill of rights as written, including the 9th and 10th amendments.
Slashdot Mirror
All transmitted in the clear on public spectrum.
These days people don't write X11 applications - they write QT apps or GTK apps.
or wx apps, or swing apps, or XUL apps, or FLTK apps, etc. Every one of those toolkits will have to be modified to provide network transparency. You just multiplied the amount of work by 6. And what if the toolkit authors don't want to do the extra work the Wayland devs are trying to push on them?
Or whatever transport Wayland provides which could involve shifting bitmap deltas around the network for each surface or extending the rendering pipeline to the client
Could? How about will? Every X11 app *will* be network transparent. Every Wayland app *could* be network transparent. See the difference?
True, but they were even bigger donors to Romney. Bad or worse. Your choice. I voted Green.
Thank you. A third party vote is the only defensible choice in this day an age. I don't care what third party you vote for, but if you vote for either major party you're part of the problem.
If the old covenant was replaced by Jesus, why does the Catholic Church care if they are celibate or not?
The random, out of context, quote from the Old (and fulfilled) Testament that is no longer applicable
You mean like this one?
Or this one?
If Leviticus 21:20-23 is "no longer applicable", why does the Catholic Church claim that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are still applicable?
Then he's cool with gay sex now, right? The Catholic Church wants it both ways. Either Leviticus is obsolete, in which case the Pope can wear glasses and christians can have gay sex, or it still applies, and both gay sex and a pope with poor eyesight are abominations.
What's the official church stance on why one is OK and the other is an abomination? Do they even acknowledge the issue?
We already know who the financial terrorists are that are the biggest threat to our economy and national security. And they're all Obama donors.
Why does Obama need a financial monitoring network when he can't bother to throw Lloyd Blankfein in jail for well established fraud, perjury, and racketeering?
Are Wayland window decorations not provided by the client? If a client freezes, does that not imply that the window decorations not also freeze?
If we're factually incorrect, why not explain what we're wrong about and what the actual facts are?
Why can't we have both? If we could provide network transparency in 1988 with ancient code, why can't we provide it today with modern code?
Isn't that the least bit embarassing to you Wayland boosters?
Only in-depth linux geeks even know network transparency exists
Are you suggesting that "in-depth linux geeks" are not important?
The point is not that it's not a niche. It's that its an important niche that Linux has served well for decades. Linux has always catered to power users with niche needs. It should not stop now.
Then don't use it FFS, use X11. Over Wayland. It's not rocket science to understand.
What do we do about native Wayland apps?
If it's not rocket science, explain that to me. The whole point of Wayland is to deprecate X11. If Wayland is successful, it will supplant X11 and people will not write X11 apps anymore.
So explain to me how running X11 over Wayland is a solution to the lack of network transparency in Wayland. If it's easy to understand, it must be easy to explain. So go ahead, explain it. Please! I really don't want to have to worry about this or bitch about this.
And what do I do when no one develops for X11 anymore?
Sufficient development resources are available. There's nothing wrong with X11 as it exists today. My contributions to X.org won't do anything to stop Wayland from being developed. My incessant complaining might help stop Wayland from being adopted by distros that give a shit about their users. This is actually the most productive thing I can do in this situation.
I'm more than willing to put up or shut up. If the Wayland devs need resources to implement network transparency, then let them say so. They can put up a kickstarter and I'm sure it would be funded. I'd love to donate to such a cause, it would feel a lot better than bashing these people who I'm quite sure are well meaning. But they're simply not interested in network transparency. Bitching is my only real option.
We're all going to be out of luck when this user hostile piece of shit drops.
Frankly, to me, the idea, that by switching to Wayland will somehow mean that you lose network transparency it just as absurd that by switching to X you lose OpenGL support
If you run an X program, you are guaranteed that network transparency is available. If you run an X program, you are not guaranteed that OpenGL is available. Saying that Wayland *can* support network transparency is insufficient. I should be able to *rely* on network transparency being available to arbitrary apps.
If I find someday that a Wayland app that I need is not network transparent, what should I do? That's never even been a cromulent question with regards to X.
So while Wayland itself will not support network transparency, the full stack surely will.
I hope you're right. But I'm not about to shut up about it until the "full stack" exists, has all the features X11 had, and performs better.
Then get the Wayland developers to guarantee that Wayland apps will be network transparent. Then we will shut up and you won't have to listen to us anymore. Until then, expect us to bitch every time Wayland is mentioned.
You have three options:
-provide network transparency
-give up and go home
-put up with constant bitching
Your choice.
I want all the features provided by X11. It doesn't have to be X. Just don't take any features away.
For the record, you're insisting that you bring forward obsolete mechanisms that 99.99% of end users will never use. Nobody outside a handful of sysadmins uses X network transparency, and only then I suspect to stroke their own egos.
You could say the same about Linux itself. Figure out why this statement is wrong when applied to Linux, and you'll understand why it's wrong when applied to network transparency.
For the record, as long as whatever display system we settle on provides network transparency for all applications, I don't care what's behind the hood.
Could it be that any of us "normal" types could find ourselves committing an outrage
We live in an outrageous world. When you eat a banana, you are rewarding slavers. When you vote Democrat or Republican, you get the blood of their wars on your hands. Don't think that you are so different from the criminally insane. Your murderous actions are only more socially acceptable.
There's is nothing liberal about this. It is simply conservative in the other direction. There is no significant difference between the people who would restrict freedom to protect women and the people who would restrict freedom to protect "the family". The people behind these proposals are as conservative as James Dobson and Focus on the Family, just a different flavor of conservative.
The offensive bit of the directive (the sweeping ban on otherwise legal material on the internet) has been removed
Is TFA incorrect that the ban still applies to print media and advertising? Why is that any less offensive? Any restriction on speech is intolerable.
The harm done to my son from of this cannot be undone.
And this harm is so severe you're willing to abandon our most cherished liberty? People like you are why parents should be prohibited from voting. Get a grip.
Off on a tangent, one of the reasons America is so divided is too many people have tried to turn every question of policy into a constitutional issue and thus an issue for the courts.
If anything, the courts have not stepped in often enough. The government constantly violates every amendment except the third, and this lawlessness has been rubber stamped by the supreme court repeatedly. We desperately need a SCOTUS which will enforce the bill of rights as written, including the 9th and 10th amendments.