You (and you cohorts) apparently think that moving a whole country including ALL the infrastrucure that supports that country, and, explicitly including the transport and opower generation infrastructure, is going to be cheaper than replacing a small portion of that infrastructure and leaving our farms where they are. How much do you think the power generation infrastructure is as a percentage of the whole? 5%? 7%?
I didn't say that. I support moving to green technologies now. But that's a very different question then whether if we don't reduce CO2 humans will face mass death a few centuries out because farms are in the wrong place. The UN's argument's that assume no adaption are stupid. People are going to move farms rather than starve billions. Also if you are going to do the price comparison you need to look at NPV. If you assume something like 5% real growth doing something 300 years from now is effectively 2.2m times cheaper than incurring that same expense today. Even if you assume only 2% you are still at 380x. Effectively we have no idea what anything will cost 3 centuries from now. We don't understand their economy well enough to do the math.
The goal isn't small incremental change and I'm not sure he cares if some stuff does break. Assume some stuff does break. 98% of people's vim configs work perfectly but 2% don't. 90% of VIM scripts work fine in NeoVIM but 10% can't. If it is important NeoVim might introduce a compatibility mode which allows legacy stuff to work. Heck how do you think VIM took over from VI and replaced the codebase? I've been using Vim for over 20 years. I love the fact that I can depend on VIM being anywhere. But there's a lot I'd like to see changed.
I'm happy about VIM being "VIM likes its always been" and NeoVIM being "ideas from VIM reimplemented in an entirely new editor".
Possibly. I'm just not sure they have the money / resources. There are likely going to be lots of interesting niches in handsets I hope Jolla finds one or two and thrives. I'd love to see Sailfish keep being designed.
For lurkers: Sailfish is Qt based though so it doesn't use EFL. The tie was to Tizen not to the Enlightenment comments.
Well the big thing it offers in 2014 is the GUI API (EFL) used by Tizen. Tizen depending on how things play with Google may or may not be core to Samsung's strategy going forward. The real advantage of E is on hardware well below what's normative even for netbooks around 128 MB RAM.
You sound like you would consider it wasteful. Reactive programming is a paradigm for when views dominate and uses an more sophisticated variant of lazy evaluation to allow for mutable variables that are only fully evaluated when needed, rather than when defined. Lazy is really useful for being able to manipulate indefinite or even infinite data structures without introducing elements of implementation into algorithms. So it makes your code vastly more maintainable but often at the cost of quadratic memory usage.
Apple has consistently been opposed to long term legacy use. Anyone pissed off by this is completely irrational. iPad 1 was an April 2010 device, which Apple had an expected life for of 2-3 years.
You don't like rapid upgrades Microsoft will be happy for your tablet business.
One of the key purposes of Windows 8 was to start raising hardware requirements. Laptops under $250 shouldn't be part of the Windows ecosystem, they shouldn't exist. Microsoft should be glad to lose them. This price cut is going to give a huge advantage to devices under $250 and create a void between $250-400. Bad, bad inconsistent.... If anything they should be doing the opposite. Make Window 8 $150 on cheap devices and maybe free or even subsidize expensive devices. They need to drive their customers up market after almost two decades of driving them downmarket.
No they did all that nonsense to have features like monitoring and recovery that init.d didn't have. If a daemon has problems and needs to restart itself how does it do that? Heck if you really mean init.d and not xinit.d how does a system support triggers for hundreds or thousands of daemons most of which run very infrequently?
The exiting hardware solves existing problems. The biggest new problem we have is decreasing levels of user knowledge about PC paradigms, decreasing computer literacy. That requires the move to newer hardware that is more like smartphones in terms of interface, where the end users are becoming increasing literate. Another example of that is breaking file management that was designed around dual floppies and moving, which requires SSD as being effectively mandatory. Another example is bringing down size and weight which definitely requires hardware and some level of software support as programs need to be efficient per watt.
So you want to solve today's problems you don't target six year ago's hardware.
This is even worse. So you need to have every toolkit installed on both sides to make it work?
Yep.
Also you are missing my point. Upgrade GTK from one version to another, does it still work?
Both sides are going to need the widget set the application was compiled against. So minor versions will generally be fine but full version numbers you'll need both.
Also, X is a very flexible protocol. Toolkits could already apply deep knowledge if they wanted to and if X is missing something on the server side, this could be added as an extension in a backwards compatible way.
How? The X protocol limits what can be sent and what sorts of queries can be used. It limits things like traffic shaping. There is no way for an X11 app to do a simple request like "do you want me to generate a virtual PDF and send that to you, or do you want the low level print stream to forward to a local printer and if so what format do you want the stream in?"
They want to create another incompatible protocol?
No they want to create several. One per widget set. So Qt/KDE would have one, GTK/Gnome would have one. Then there likely would be others like Enlightenment / EWL. Each protocol is going to be smart about respective applications.
I don't see what you mean by applications and graphics are shared?
Can an application write directly to the graphics buffer or not? If yes you get performance and no network transparency. If no you get network transparency but take a performance hit.
But I have very good performance with 'ssh -X' from home to work so it is working for me and it is very simple.
You aren't getting good efficiency. Good performance is a result of just using a ton of resources. Lots of problems go away if you throw enough hardware at them. SSH will fall apart very quickly if you start not giving it enough resources. More robust protocols will be able to shape traffic more effectively. Try it by limiting traffic on a VM.
Good point that X isn't meaningfully network transparent for most modern GUIs. It is for the old stuff and that will be gone. And I agree 100% that X11's remote is structurally terrible. I don't even think X is all that convenient. In today's Unix world you need built in security and X11 doesn't have that. In today's networking world you need the traffic analyzers to be able to make intelligent choices about packet priorities and X doesn't have any useful information for IP based traffic. So even there it sucks.
No you are missing his point. It is GTK or Qt. So Qt apps do it one way while GTK do it another. Both sides have both. That's not reinventing X11 that's a genuine alternative where each widget set takes advantage of deep knowledge.
They are talking about RDP like design not RDP itself. RDP is designed for Windows. Wayland's RDP is going to be designed for Wayland.
You could achieve everything Wayland does also by extending X without breaking compatibility.
No you can't. Either applications and graphics are shared or they aren't. There are real tradeoffs of one vs. the other. You can't achieve everything, you have to pick.
I know that X can suck when you have low latency connection - but this depends on the application. This is not really a fundamental problem of the X protocol and could be fixed by not using synchronous requests with Xlib.
You mean high latency, and yes this is a fundamental problem of the X protocol. If the X protocol were designed to work well with high latency connections there would be far fewer round trips. Communication would be staged and cached.
X over WAN. You use it over ssh or ipsec. Then there is no security problem.
SSH doesn't know what's going on inside X and the network can't see what's going on inside the ssh session. Which means you get worst possible network performance if you use SSH.
There is going to be X around for years. KDE and Gnome may migrate off to Wayland but that doesn't mean there won't be X11 versions of both for a long time plus older window managers. you are getting what you want.
The people who maintain and adopted the ancient X11 codebase to do as well as it is with modernish GUIs. Yes they are excellent. And certainly they are the best we have.
I don't know about open source RDP clients but Windows clients work pretty well. It seems to be an all around very good solution with a few problems (like printing) which I'd assume the Wayland guys will have preflagged for them and thus not make the same mistake.
As far as easier than ssh -x. Absolutely. The network has no idea about the properties of the ssh internals and thus can't optimize anything. You are going to get the worst network performance possible, more or less, given your configuration. As far as X over a WAN, obviously there are latency and security problems. If you want to see what other people need to deal with, introduce some extra latency into your configuration and try it.
Finally in terms of old applications, Wayland like OSX or Windows will run an X11 server on top of itself. X11 applications run fine in Wayland, it is the reverse that's going to prove problematic.
RDP allows you to run applications over a network. It does precisely what you are talking about. I think you are confused since you are comparing it to VLC.
Wayland has something like Windows RDP working as their remote solution. They are throwing out "network transparency" in exchange for "easy and fast remote operation".
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say that. I support moving to green technologies now. But that's a very different question then whether if we don't reduce CO2 humans will face mass death a few centuries out because farms are in the wrong place. The UN's argument's that assume no adaption are stupid. People are going to move farms rather than starve billions. Also if you are going to do the price comparison you need to look at NPV. If you assume something like 5% real growth doing something 300 years from now is effectively 2.2m times cheaper than incurring that same expense today. Even if you assume only 2% you are still at 380x. Effectively we have no idea what anything will cost 3 centuries from now. We don't understand their economy well enough to do the math.
These changes happen over centuries. Yes we move / replace infrastructure all the time.
The goal isn't small incremental change and I'm not sure he cares if some stuff does break. Assume some stuff does break. 98% of people's vim configs work perfectly but 2% don't. 90% of VIM scripts work fine in NeoVIM but 10% can't. If it is important NeoVim might introduce a compatibility mode which allows legacy stuff to work. Heck how do you think VIM took over from VI and replaced the codebase? I've been using Vim for over 20 years. I love the fact that I can depend on VIM being anywhere. But there's a lot I'd like to see changed.
I'm happy about VIM being "VIM likes its always been" and NeoVIM being "ideas from VIM reimplemented in an entirely new editor".
Possibly. I'm just not sure they have the money / resources. There are likely going to be lots of interesting niches in handsets I hope Jolla finds one or two and thrives. I'd love to see Sailfish keep being designed.
For lurkers: Sailfish is Qt based though so it doesn't use EFL. The tie was to Tizen not to the Enlightenment comments.
Well the big thing it offers in 2014 is the GUI API (EFL) used by Tizen. Tizen depending on how things play with Google may or may not be core to Samsung's strategy going forward. The real advantage of E is on hardware well below what's normative even for netbooks around 128 MB RAM.
Short comment, nothing to respond to other than yes people should. But nice to have you here when these sorts of topics arise.
You sound like you would consider it wasteful. Reactive programming is a paradigm for when views dominate and uses an more sophisticated variant of lazy evaluation to allow for mutable variables that are only fully evaluated when needed, rather than when defined. Lazy is really useful for being able to manipulate indefinite or even infinite data structures without introducing elements of implementation into algorithms. So it makes your code vastly more maintainable but often at the cost of quadratic memory usage.
Apple has consistently been opposed to long term legacy use. Anyone pissed off by this is completely irrational. iPad 1 was an April 2010 device, which Apple had an expected life for of 2-3 years.
You don't like rapid upgrades Microsoft will be happy for your tablet business.
One of the key purposes of Windows 8 was to start raising hardware requirements. Laptops under $250 shouldn't be part of the Windows ecosystem, they shouldn't exist. Microsoft should be glad to lose them. This price cut is going to give a huge advantage to devices under $250 and create a void between $250-400. Bad, bad inconsistent.... If anything they should be doing the opposite. Make Window 8 $150 on cheap devices and maybe free or even subsidize expensive devices. They need to drive their customers up market after almost two decades of driving them downmarket.
No they did all that nonsense to have features like monitoring and recovery that init.d didn't have. If a daemon has problems and needs to restart itself how does it do that? Heck if you really mean init.d and not xinit.d how does a system support triggers for hundreds or thousands of daemons most of which run very infrequently?
The exiting hardware solves existing problems. The biggest new problem we have is decreasing levels of user knowledge about PC paradigms, decreasing computer literacy. That requires the move to newer hardware that is more like smartphones in terms of interface, where the end users are becoming increasing literate. Another example of that is breaking file management that was designed around dual floppies and moving, which requires SSD as being effectively mandatory. Another example is bringing down size and weight which definitely requires hardware and some level of software support as programs need to be efficient per watt.
So you want to solve today's problems you don't target six year ago's hardware.
Well yeah technology has gotten better. In the case of PCs just at a slowing rate.
Supercomputing wasn't stagnant during the 00s.
Yep.
Both sides are going to need the widget set the application was compiled against. So minor versions will generally be fine but full version numbers you'll need both.
How? The X protocol limits what can be sent and what sorts of queries can be used. It limits things like traffic shaping. There is no way for an X11 app to do a simple request like "do you want me to generate a virtual PDF and send that to you, or do you want the low level print stream to forward to a local printer and if so what format do you want the stream in?"
No they want to create several. One per widget set. So Qt/KDE would have one, GTK/Gnome would have one. Then there likely would be others like Enlightenment / EWL. Each protocol is going to be smart about respective applications.
Can an application write directly to the graphics buffer or not? If yes you get performance and no network transparency. If no you get network transparency but take a performance hit.
You aren't getting good efficiency. Good performance is a result of just using a ton of resources. Lots of problems go away if you throw enough hardware at them. SSH will fall apart very quickly if you start not giving it enough resources. More robust protocols will be able to shape traffic more effectively. Try it by limiting traffic on a VM.
Good point that X isn't meaningfully network transparent for most modern GUIs. It is for the old stuff and that will be gone. And I agree 100% that X11's remote is structurally terrible. I don't even think X is all that convenient. In today's Unix world you need built in security and X11 doesn't have that. In today's networking world you need the traffic analyzers to be able to make intelligent choices about packet priorities and X doesn't have any useful information for IP based traffic. So even there it sucks.
No you are missing his point. It is GTK or Qt. So Qt apps do it one way while GTK do it another. Both sides have both. That's not reinventing X11 that's a genuine alternative where each widget set takes advantage of deep knowledge.
They are talking about RDP like design not RDP itself. RDP is designed for Windows. Wayland's RDP is going to be designed for Wayland.
No you can't. Either applications and graphics are shared or they aren't. There are real tradeoffs of one vs. the other. You can't achieve everything, you have to pick.
You mean high latency, and yes this is a fundamental problem of the X protocol. If the X protocol were designed to work well with high latency connections there would be far fewer round trips. Communication would be staged and cached.
SSH doesn't know what's going on inside X and the network can't see what's going on inside the ssh session. Which means you get worst possible network performance if you use SSH.
There is going to be X around for years. KDE and Gnome may migrate off to Wayland but that doesn't mean there won't be X11 versions of both for a long time plus older window managers. you are getting what you want.
I'd agree that's a good example of the sort of thing one would do if they started X over again with a similar design.
The people who maintain and adopted the ancient X11 codebase to do as well as it is with modernish GUIs. Yes they are excellent. And certainly they are the best we have.
Windows display system was reinvented with Vista (Aero interface). It isn't 30 years old.
I don't know about open source RDP clients but Windows clients work pretty well. It seems to be an all around very good solution with a few problems (like printing) which I'd assume the Wayland guys will have preflagged for them and thus not make the same mistake.
As far as easier than ssh -x. Absolutely. The network has no idea about the properties of the ssh internals and thus can't optimize anything. You are going to get the worst network performance possible, more or less, given your configuration. As far as X over a WAN, obviously there are latency and security problems. If you want to see what other people need to deal with, introduce some extra latency into your configuration and try it.
Finally in terms of old applications, Wayland like OSX or Windows will run an X11 server on top of itself. X11 applications run fine in Wayland, it is the reverse that's going to prove problematic.
RDP allows you to run applications over a network. It does precisely what you are talking about. I think you are confused since you are comparing it to VLC.
Wayland has something like Windows RDP working as their remote solution. They are throwing out "network transparency" in exchange for "easy and fast remote operation".
Let me just point out, Wayland came out of the X11 community. This version of how they recruited is total fabrication.