I agree with you. The Republicans have as a party gone off the rails into a land of policy insanity. The Democrats are generally good, generally doing the right thing but very imperfect. There isn't really a comparison.
I'd say a Christmas type decoration on the law on a municipal building is a bit short of a theocracy. Yes they are demonstrating some bias and that's bad but there are degrees.
I guess that's true. If you wrote a protocol so that each Wayland client believed it was talking to a Wayland compositor while really that was code running on the X-Server, and the X-Server took information from the X-compositor and transformed it into Wayland-compositor messages it would be possible to do that. That's a lot of work though.
I don't think anyone is doing it. So the answer is that's man years that no one intends to spend.
The poster is pretty well known to dismiss good answers he's gotten over the years.
The problems with X11 start at things like the number of round trips the client and server have to engage in. Anyone can watch the protocol chat back and forth in RAM and them imagine that they were on a connection with 100ms, 200ms latency....
It isn't hard to do the math for some of these bad cases: 150 round trips x 200 ms latency = 3 seconds till the window gets finished drawing.
Anyone who has used X11 over a WAN has seen this problem for themselves.
X11 is permanently unfixable. That's not a minor issue. A grown up is going to tell you that latencies over the public internet is worse than that and with QoS becoming more important and mobile latencies are likely to increase over the next generation.
The basic design for X... not really. The basic design for X does a great job of solving the problem of solving the problem of how to distribute workload on a LAN when servers can do the complex graphics while clients can't. That's not the situation anywhere. Motif is not the way things are done. Everyone is constantly trying to get around the basic design for X because they want to shift workload from the servers (X-Client) to the client (X-Server). So no I don't think the basic design has lasted.
As for Wayland getting cruft. The idea of Wayland is that hopefully it fits the model and gets tossed when the model no longer fits.
As for "eating his own dogfood" he was specific, he is going to start using Wayland himself when he fixes Mutter as a compositor so that GNOME can run on Wayland plus one other to-do.
As for VNC good enough, he said it was better than X. Wayland has always pushed for an RDP type solution.
Lots of experiments and some of the initial testing, more or less a functioning prototype. My opinion is the functional version will be in the next version of KDE/GNOME: KDE 5 and GNOME 4 and that's if all goes reasonably well.
Wayland is going to be implementing some like RDP to handle this. Wayland natively does not handle this. So if your question is in terms of "Wayland as it is likely to exist" then likely you will be able to do it. If your question is "Wayland by itself with none of the supporting ecosystem" no. On the other hand normal screen sharing stuff like VNC would work.
What prevents it from being done is that Wayland applications share their graphical and application buffer. You can't pull it apart without virtualizing the entire screen like VNC.
iOS uses some very low level hardware based systems that don't work with X11. X11 for example doesn't allow for an h.264 movie as a graphical primitive with its own hardware based rendering system that can't go back and forth between buffers. Similarly for the camera.
More importantly the ram requirements would be a substantial problem. 1.2m per screen with 3 screens for layers with 60 ftps. Double that up again for the extra X11 buffers and you are out of ram already before you have any code. Which means you either have to finish your screen computations twice as fast or not use X11's buffering strategy.
X11 runs on top of Wayland. I imagine you might be able to run Wayland on X11 by creating a fake screen but it could be brutally slow. Pretty much, yes you have to wait for driver support.
Speed of light 186,282 miles per second Speed that a human can detect jitter of an icon tracing a finger 1/100th of a second size of the earth 26k miles circumference of the earth 24,901 fastest possible a round trip can occur from the worst 2 spots on the earth assuming 0 latency beyond the speed of light:.0683 seconds or the earth is about 7x too big for X11 to work.
Chance of us being able to fix either the speed of light or the size of the earth 0%
From what I've heard, window managers are much harder to write for Wayland than for X11 but there is an expectation there will be several in a few years. It isn't going to be like X11 though where you can create a basic window manager as a classroom assignment.
That's nice in theory. But in reality what is enforced is the law. The United States has a constitution which is mostly enforced and almost universally respected. Other countries have had constitutions which are mostly ignored.
So basically they are upset they ended up losing out, but really don't give a crap about the existing Gnome 2 userbase they pissed off. I fail to see how this supports your earlier statements.
My earlier statement is the were unhappy with the bad press, they were unhappy they "ended up losing out". Dropping the existing GNOME 2 userbase had to happen, they had no choice. On the other hand they could have dropped them in a way that was less destructive to Gnome. And they are unhappy about that.
You were claiming they didn't want to listen and that was true and it has changed. That's real contrition. That doesn't mean they are willing to listen to users who want a 90s a style desktop. But they are much more willing to listen to users about how best to construct a modern desktop.
Oracle has more features than PostgreSQL, no argument here. But Postgres development seems to b more agile, and these guys are catching up fast:
No question. In 2000 Postgres was just incredibly slow. There was almost no Postgres applications that wouldn't have been better under Oracle excluding cost issues. The feature differences were tremendous. Today the differences are limited to a very small number of databases, Oracle is a niche product.
I doubt it. The engine has to be aware of how long it is doing things and schedule around various tasks that most complete every so often. That's a major overhaul of the code for Postgres.
Yes in general in SQL you want the engine to decide. Sometimes the engine is going to decide wrong. And that's where "hints" in Oracle make a huge difference.
The first amendment protects disclosures in the public interest. A tort requires government enforcement. The tobacco companies tried the same contractual argument against their employees and lost.
It was in an advanced state but there were conflicts between what was going in. Different teams had different build ups. Also lots of insiders have said it.
I've also seen no contrition on their part. Perhaps you can point to some?
Yes. There was a big discussion around Gnome 3.4 days on the "Is GNOME still relevant".
a) Canonical didn't come crawling back, much the opposite. b) The backlash didn't stop c) Mate and Cinnamon were created and Mint started to take share from Ubuntu
They aren't happy. Contrition is probably the wrong word though. They didn't sign up to maintain GNOME 2. They aren't there to build a 90s style desktop. They mostly agree they handled the community interaction badly. But they don't agree that the goal is a bad one. They continue to want GNOME first and foremost to be a mobile OS. They understand that means losing their existing customer base. They want 20% of the global user community. That is they want Maemo as a do over, not GNOME 2.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you. The Republicans have as a party gone off the rails into a land of policy insanity. The Democrats are generally good, generally doing the right thing but very imperfect. There isn't really a comparison.
I'd say a Christmas type decoration on the law on a municipal building is a bit short of a theocracy. Yes they are demonstrating some bias and that's bad but there are degrees.
sure the port of FreeRDP by Kristian Høgsberg into Wayland is much more recent.
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/2013-March/007740.html
I guess that's true. If you wrote a protocol so that each Wayland client believed it was talking to a Wayland compositor while really that was code running on the X-Server, and the X-Server took information from the X-compositor and transformed it into Wayland-compositor messages it would be possible to do that. That's a lot of work though.
I don't think anyone is doing it. So the answer is that's man years that no one intends to spend.
The poster is pretty well known to dismiss good answers he's gotten over the years.
The problems with X11 start at things like the number of round trips the client and server have to engage in. Anyone can watch the protocol chat back and forth in RAM and them imagine that they were on a connection with 100ms, 200ms latency....
It isn't hard to do the math for some of these bad cases:
150 round trips x 200 ms latency = 3 seconds till the window gets finished drawing.
Anyone who has used X11 over a WAN has seen this problem for themselves.
X11 is permanently unfixable. That's not a minor issue. A grown up is going to tell you that latencies over the public internet is worse than that and with QoS becoming more important and mobile latencies are likely to increase over the next generation.
The basic design for X... not really. The basic design for X does a great job of solving the problem of solving the problem of how to distribute workload on a LAN when servers can do the complex graphics while clients can't. That's not the situation anywhere. Motif is not the way things are done. Everyone is constantly trying to get around the basic design for X because they want to shift workload from the servers (X-Client) to the client (X-Server). So no I don't think the basic design has lasted.
As for Wayland getting cruft. The idea of Wayland is that hopefully it fits the model and gets tossed when the model no longer fits.
As for "eating his own dogfood" he was specific, he is going to start using Wayland himself when he fixes Mutter as a compositor so that GNOME can run on Wayland plus one other to-do.
As for VNC good enough, he said it was better than X. Wayland has always pushed for an RDP type solution.
That would be my guess to you have a genuinely useful remote system rather than cool proof of concepts.
Lots of experiments and some of the initial testing, more or less a functioning prototype. My opinion is the functional version will be in the next version of KDE/GNOME: KDE 5 and GNOME 4 and that's if all goes reasonably well.
Wayland is going to be implementing some like RDP to handle this. Wayland natively does not handle this. So if your question is in terms of "Wayland as it is likely to exist" then likely you will be able to do it. If your question is "Wayland by itself with none of the supporting ecosystem" no. On the other hand normal screen sharing stuff like VNC would work.
What prevents it from being done is that Wayland applications share their graphical and application buffer. You can't pull it apart without virtualizing the entire screen like VNC.
iOS uses some very low level hardware based systems that don't work with X11. X11 for example doesn't allow for an h.264 movie as a graphical primitive with its own hardware based rendering system that can't go back and forth between buffers. Similarly for the camera.
More importantly the ram requirements would be a substantial problem. 1.2m per screen with 3 screens for layers with 60 ftps. Double that up again for the extra X11 buffers and you are out of ram already before you have any code. Which means you either have to finish your screen computations twice as fast or not use X11's buffering strategy.
X11 runs on top of Wayland. I imagine you might be able to run Wayland on X11 by creating a fake screen but it could be brutally slow. Pretty much, yes you have to wait for driver support.
Good video link by the AC. Worth checking out.
Absolutely it is. Being able to control round trips is fundamental to thin clients working on a WAN as opposed to a LAN environment.
sorry .0683 seconds is for a one way trip. Round trip is double that. i.e. earth is 13.5x too big.
Sure.
Speed of light 186,282 miles per second .0683 seconds
Speed that a human can detect jitter of an icon tracing a finger 1/100th of a second
size of the earth 26k miles
circumference of the earth 24,901
fastest possible a round trip can occur from the worst 2 spots on the earth assuming 0 latency beyond the speed of light:
or the earth is about 7x too big for X11 to work.
Chance of us being able to fix either the speed of light or the size of the earth 0%
From what I've heard, window managers are much harder to write for Wayland than for X11 but there is an expectation there will be several in a few years. It isn't going to be like X11 though where you can create a basic window manager as a classroom assignment.
That's nice in theory. But in reality what is enforced is the law. The United States has a constitution which is mostly enforced and almost universally respected. Other countries have had constitutions which are mostly ignored.
My earlier statement is the were unhappy with the bad press, they were unhappy they "ended up losing out". Dropping the existing GNOME 2 userbase had to happen, they had no choice. On the other hand they could have dropped them in a way that was less destructive to Gnome. And they are unhappy about that.
You were claiming they didn't want to listen and that was true and it has changed. That's real contrition. That doesn't mean they are willing to listen to users who want a 90s a style desktop. But they are much more willing to listen to users about how best to construct a modern desktop.
No question. In 2000 Postgres was just incredibly slow. There was almost no Postgres applications that wouldn't have been better under Oracle excluding cost issues. The feature differences were tremendous. Today the differences are limited to a very small number of databases, Oracle is a niche product.
I doubt it. The engine has to be aware of how long it is doing things and schedule around various tasks that most complete every so often. That's a major overhaul of the code for Postgres.
Yes in general in SQL you want the engine to decide. Sometimes the engine is going to decide wrong. And that's where "hints" in Oracle make a huge difference.
The first amendment protects disclosures in the public interest. A tort requires government enforcement. The tobacco companies tried the same contractual argument against their employees and lost.
It was in an advanced state but there were conflicts between what was going in. Different teams had different build ups. Also lots of insiders have said it.
Yes. There was a big discussion around Gnome 3.4 days on the "Is GNOME still relevant".
a) Canonical didn't come crawling back, much the opposite.
b) The backlash didn't stop
c) Mate and Cinnamon were created and Mint started to take share from Ubuntu
They aren't happy. Contrition is probably the wrong word though. They didn't sign up to maintain GNOME 2. They aren't there to build a 90s style desktop. They mostly agree they handled the community interaction badly. But they don't agree that the goal is a bad one. They continue to want GNOME first and foremost to be a mobile OS. They understand that means losing their existing customer base. They want 20% of the global user community. That is they want Maemo as a do over, not GNOME 2.