OK... it certainly is the case that Wayland remote will work worse with dumb terminal type setups. Wayland is assuming the the box remoting into is smart. A phone is plenty smart to run Wayland, and if you kept your applications light (i.e. about 10 years old) would be able handle the toolkits. So for your lapdock type setup you could actually run your desktop applications in a way that is comfortable over mobile data and not chew up insane amounts of data. Again as is usual for the actual use case you are describing Wayland is likely far better than X11. Not far better at doing things the X way but far better at doing the same function as long as you are willing to not cut against the grain.
As far as security goes the receiving machine can have an unwritable filesystem (or unwritable from the OS running Wayland) or be virtualized and just blow away and restore the image after use.... You can achieve the same security with smart as you do with dumb.
But if you want actually dumb, then you need to virtualize your screen. Then you talking something like VNC. Wayland makes use of smart so doesn't support dumb as well. Smart is the more common situation today....
Availability of choice is something that has made Linux great for a very long time. Will there be no future development in this area? Is it going to be QT/GTK forever?
Any toolkit can have Wayland remoting. That's going to be a standard part of writing new toolkits in say 10 years.
Providing network support at a layer between the toolkits and what Wayland provides would be fine by me so long as it meant that this layer was what the toolkits or applications are coded to talk to, not Wayland directly.
In theory Wayland supports that. In practice it isn't going to be what's going to happen so I don't consider it particularly relevant. In practice it happens at the toolkit level and applications pick up their remoting from their toolkit unless they want something more complex.
But... if I don't have my lapdock on me remoting the phone to a computer would be a handy way to handle long-winded text conversations.
That's session sharing. What's better is not remoting the conversation to the computer but that the computer syncs with the phone and has a copy of the conversations at all times. Many messaging systems already provide that. I do that today. No reason to remote just push the data.
I see something like moving the remote support out to the toolkits as making this dream far less likely.
I disagree it makes the dream far more likely. To actually be remote you need good WAN behavior on high latency connections, like a cell phone. That's unfixable not available with X11. Everything else is just using a secure potentially unwritable image for remote machines (VM...) and enjoy. Yes when your main OS changes toolkits (something like KDE 5 to 6) you will need to update your dumb images to match but that's not hard in your scenario.
Server I think is trickier. Let me throw out a hypothetical for say 2028.
Samsung releases a 1024 core SOC which is cool enough it can be used in a blade. Intel is using 16 core Xeons that require a full 1U. The Samsung cores are say each 1/2 as fast as the Intel cores. Everything needs to be custom compiled for the hardware but Samsung has their own fully supported distribution which supports cloud foundry, open stack... The complexity of the x86 makes Intel emulating these designs impossible.
You are relying on every author to care about this issue. I don't think that even a majority will.
I'm relying on the author of every (or most every) toolkit to care. Once the toolkits remote you have better remoting on a per toolkit basis than you do under by X. Your hypothetical application author has to have chosen an obscure modern toolkit which doesn't remote. If they choose a common one it is going support Wayland. If they choose an old one it is going to support X. You are talking well under 1% of all applications and those likely designed not to remote.
How bad is the latency going to be anyway? Today's cable modems are much faster than the LANs where I first learned to 'love X'.
I think you are confusing bandwidth and latency. Latencies on LANs are probably slightly higher than they were 25 years ago. Latencies on WANs aren't remotely close to LAN latencies 25 years ago, and are slowly creeping up not decreasing. Internationalization and additional layers of servers are mainly to blame. SIP has a hard 150ms barrier. This used to be no problem now with international especially to the 3rd world even 200ms variants aren't slow enough.
Moreover we don't have any solution to latency. While we might be able to half them through technology and better engineering to go beyond that we either need to shrink the planet or increase the speed of light.
A local Gnome? A local KDE? My main purpose for running remotely is to NOT have to install and maintain all that baggage in multiple locations.
I'm starting to think you are constructing your objections to be difficult. If you are an end user what do you care what sits on the hard drive? You install a mainstream distribution you install the standard toolkits, done. There is nothing to maintain beyond running Linux. You mentioned cut and past in earlier posts. The X-Server doesn't support any interaction beyond plain text, like clicking on applications starting the appropriate support libraries without those toolkits being installed. So you are doing this now. You are contradicting yourself on your use case. You can't have this being a feature you use in the last post and then in this one want to run without local toolkits. You don't have that now.
You are going eventually be able to construct a use case where X11 is better. I will freely acknowledge there exist possible use cases where X11 will be a better fit than Wayland. Say 1% or users. But by the same token I can easily construct a 100 use cases where X11 is terrible for every use case that exists on which Wayland introduces a slight problem. So those arguments don't do much. When you choose X11 you choose all those problems for other people. You need to argue that X11 is better than Wayland not that Wayland is imperfect. My opinion is that X11 mostly sucks at everything. It has been a disaster for Unix, forcing Unix to emulate hardware configurations that no one has used for two decades. In today's world X11 doesn't do anything well, and does most things far worse than any of the other mainstream competing graphical display systems.
And I'm including remoting in that. X11 doesn't even have a security layer or traffic shaping. SSH which is the dominant security layer breaks 3rd party traffic shaping. I'll start throwing out examples of non-fringe use cases where traffic shaping is needed like international or congestion and X11+Security will collapse.
So if you want to be remoting on a LAN not WAN, have a not quite dumb terminal but a Linux box that for some reason has enough of the toolkit installed to support the X-Server versions of applications but not the X-Client versions of those same applications, and want to run lots of applications from different sources then X11's remoting will work better. With a use case that important I'm shocked that the Wayland project hasn't been cancelled already. The realit
Of course if the dominant player cut their margins they can preserve their position with their least profitable, least demanding customer. That's always the case with disruption from below. Microsoft did precisely that with netbooks almost a decade ago where they allowed netbooks to:
a) drive down the price of OEM Windows b) not allow them to raise the specs for years and thus made the XP -> Vista upgrade less advantageous while often equally painful. c) by forcing Microsoft to focus down market created a bigger opening for Apple at the top of the market.....
Absolutely if Intel choose to go after the ARM business they could. But Intel just turned Apple down on a fabrication deal. Intel wants their margins more than they want marketshare. Intel's least demand, lowest margin customers are ARM's high margin most demanding customers. That's how ARM slowly moves upmarket. That's how disruption from below works.
As for SOC for laptops. Here we disagree. The x86 market today has standardized hardware. Intel, Microsoft and Western Digital created a hardware / software standard that's lasted for a generation. But that hardware / software standard doesn't need to hold, and obviously wouldn't be holding if x86 is being replaced. I can easily imagine a future generation of SOC for systems with keyboards as much as they are useful in today's tablets. That doesn't mean today's SOCs are good enough, today's SOCs are barely good enough for Chromebooks. We know that the bottom rungs of laptop users were able to replace some or most of their usage with the current generation of iOS/Android tablets, if we picture SOCs 3x as functional...
i) ARM comes in first and takes customers who have requirements that x86 couldn't possibly satisfy: done ii) ARM takes those customers who could be on x86 but gain tremendously from ARM: done iii) ARM takes the least profitable least demanding customers from x86: happening with Chrome books -- in progress iv) ARM takes over people core to x86 (laptops): not happening yet v) ARM takes over more demanding users x86 desktop, server... : not close -- this results in x86 becoming a niche product for the most demanding users vi) ARM takes over the most demanding users extincting x86: not close
I'm saying I can see step iii becoming step iv. Of course ARM this year is not ready for step (v). But that's different than what the situation might look like 10 or 15 years out. If neither Windows nor Linux were tuned for x86 as the primary platform its dominance in server would be in more danger. If ARM vendors were moving $100b+ / yr in CPUs (double Intel's entire revenue) the server would be in more danger....
I was just using published benchmarks. What I've heard is that 20nm helped a bit, the GPU helped a lot. I hadn't heard anything about a decoder problem. So I meant what I wrote but I'm willing to be educated.
I haven't been following it. The D-1540 seems like a nice offering. Smartphones are now 1/2 of the entire consumer electronics industry. I wouldn't underestimate the money going into ARM.
As far as ARM in server where I think ARM is likely to expand to first would be laptop. HP Chromebook 11 for example already uses this processor. Then it moves up market taking over some mainstream laptops. I could easily see for by end of decade for Apple's laptop lineup: ARM for Macbook (OSX or a variant of iOS) Intel for Macbook Pro (OSX)
First off I want to point to one paragraph: Nineteen states have laws on the books that limit such networks. They range from strict prohibitions on any or most municipal broadband service (Texas and Nevada), to requirements that a municipality hold public hearings or a referendum before offering service, as in Alabama, Colorado, Minnesota and Virginia. At least 89 communities around the country have publicly owned fiber-optic networks.
As for this case of preemption in Tennessee this is kind of nuts but overturn or preempt is too simple. The FCC here (https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-preempts-laws-restricting-community-broadband-nctn) argued that Tennessee outright violated Federal law and told a municipality to go ahead and violate state law. What's important is the FCC argued that the restrictions limited competition and regulating competition is FCC not the states. The FCC however specifically stated the states can simply ban municipalities from offering broadband services. What they weren't allowing was the state to regulate the market in a way that differs from the FCC because that does fall under FCC jurisdiction.
So the FCC is allowing the states an out here if they really hate municipal broadband. North Carolina is more interesting because the FCC specifically listed some of the provisions of their law which were barriers to investment and others that were not. Because of the out, allowing the states to ban, you avoid many of the problems if the FCC had simply preempted. The way you were phrasing it Tennessee to resist might very well have the municipal officials arrested, though of course that would move the federal case from lazily working its way through the system to urgent. Tennessee also might simply refuse to regulate the new company at all, denying it any state protections. They could deny them any ability to borrow.... That is Tennessee has the ability to defacto ban even if they can't dejure ban and thus the FCC was wise to recognize that.
I suspect the Sixth Circuit (USA federal court) where this case is heading is going to create a framework for how to handle this. Probably what they are going to say is the FCC is entitled to challenge state laws in federal court but not entitled to just tell municipalities to ignore laws the FCC disagrees with.
A 5 year ROI is basically unheard of in an infrastructure build - 20-25 is about where it's at, because it's expected to last 50 (or more)
No it isn't. 25 years ago the home internet infrastructure didn't even exist. A few years later it would have been extra capacity at LECs since people were using the cooper phone lines more hours per day. A few years after that it would have been DSL and coax connections capable of 5mbs or less. All of which are totally worthless now. Payoff in 60 months was on the high end, the company needs to make some profit on their infrastructure spend. If people start demanding faster relative speeds that means faster upgrades the spend goes from 60 months down to 36 or so. I'm not picturing 300 months for decades if not a century.
we don't need to care about the 500 miles in between towns - the middle mile is already done (for the most part)
100 towns * 5000 residential homes each * 2 gb/s *.2 average usage = extra 200k gbs of traffic or 200 pb/sec of traffic. That's a big deal.
Or since we are talking nationwide. America has 130m residences. 130m* 2gb/sec *.2 usage = 52 ebs of traffic. Our middle mile is remotely close to handling that.
We don't even have the technology to support a middle mile that large even if we were willing to spend a fortune. Now of course your point about delivering fiber capable of doing say 10gbs and only delivering 100mbs now is true. Any new infrastructure being put in in 2015 should be able to go faster than 1gbs. We agree there.
I'm having trouble with your pronouns who is us? You seem to be shifting from a NZ perspective to a USA perspective. Anyway... that's the economics. If American towns think they can get 50 years out of a fiber buy then they can certainly pay for it. But they don't so they won't. And that's the point of my posts. People think internet is cheap to provide while the reality is it is very expensive to provide and they are paying a fair estimate for what it costs given a reasonable payoff matrix. If you think the matrix is grossly mispriced then invest in telcos because they are sitting on a goldmine or own your own fiber / become an ISP. Which it appears you have.
What I've read from i.e. the amicus briefs to the FCC the law prohibited the electric company from servicing someone that didn't get their electricity from same company (or wasn't "in the area serviced"), not that they did any of the things you mention.
I think what you are talking about is one case the Electric Power Board (EPB) of Chattanooga offering Internet and video service to residents. Absolutely terrific internet service. Comcast claimed they were using ratepayer funds. Ratepayer funds are from the state governments. Using them for a purpose not allowed by law is approaching embezzlement. When you talk about southern states there is also federal involvement since their utilities often came out of New Deal legislation.
And in either case the FCC didn't like that law and struck it down
The FCC can't strike down a state law. They can argue in court against it or work towards its repeal. They aren't that powerful.
. What would be a fair characterisation then?
The problem with American broadband there really isn't one. America given its population densities is a broadband success. We have a huge percentage of the population getting ever increasing speeds at a good price point. Its not perfect but I don't think of this as a failure.
The problem with American municipalities offering broadband is that they want to play fast and loose with funding. If there was a up or down vote on whether internet should be taxpayer supported the vote would be no. But cheap internet is very popular so if the municipality makes the funding mechanism opaque the taxpayer subsidy is much more popular. Basically the problem we always have with government: 70% of Americans think the government spends too much and needs to cut spending however the moment you name any specific government program we fund 70% of Americans think that's a good use of taxpayer money and support the spending. Internet is just one more example of the inconsistent beliefs about government spending of the middle 40% of American voters. Republicans are mostly opposed to those sorts of financing games to expand government while Democrats are mostly in favor.
The law allows municipalities to pay for internet. It allows for everything you suggest easily. What it mostly doesn't allow for in those states is making it opaque and without making it opaque it lacks enough public support to become policy. The FCC under a Democratic administration of course is going to support making it opaque since they strongly support better broadband as a public good.
Have you tried: Oracle VM Server for SPARC and Oracle Solaris Zones for virtualization? Anyway Oracle and Cloud Sigma both offer Solaris in the cloud. And of course there is nothing stopping you from upgrading him to a modern Solaris box.
This was exclusively for workstations but in terms of multi processor there definitely were multi-processor 486s sold. I had a buddy with 4x486. SCO was the typical OS for these boxes. OS/2 and Linux were both working on it and would achieve it.
Also also with SCO the x86/i860 combo was popular (for an exotic workstation). The 486 while having good floating point math sucked at vector math. The i860 while good at vector math was bad at multi-tasking. There were both motherboards and compilers to take advantage of this combo which was a winner. It allowed you to build a workstation for under $10k that was a bad version of MIPS style workstations.
No you couldn't. 16mb RAM was out the but was very expensive and many motherboards wouldn't support more than 4MB SIMMs (1 and 2MB SIMMS were still the norm for PCs). Good motherboards (in full tower cases) had at most 8 slots. So I'm going with 128MB as an upper limit.
Sun wasn't that. The 128 RAM wasn't cheap but the 2G HD meant they were skimping. I bet those systems were around $5-7k or so well under double what an x86 workstation would cost.
As for getting professors to give up old equipment, start metering the electricity and billing the department.
I'd take that bet. Don't forget how much faster the ARM chips are. For example the A7 is twice the speed of the A6 which is almost 3x the speed of the A5. Admittedly the A8 is only a 20% speed burst but that's not bad relative to x86 especially for an off year. We'll find out over the next decade plus: can you make ARM faster more easily than you can x86 more efficient? But I'd bet on ARM.
So does this mean that I wouldn't be able to say remotely display a desktop environment which uses QT and within that click a shortcut to a GTK app and expect it to open and be managed by that QT desktop environment.
Remember KDE and Gnome cooperate and there is dbus. What would likely happen is something like this:
a) KDE desktop is running and you click on a Gnome application. b) KDE passes a message to the local Gnome to handle remoting c) local Gnome establishes a session with remote Gnome. d) Those two communicate making the application effectively local e) The Gnome applications displays on the KDE desktop using the tools they use today to do this sort of thing (dbus...)
So from an end user standpoint nothing changes
Once you have your desktop environment displaying remotely everything you do looks and feels local. How can you have that when each app may have a different remote implementation?
You could get a local feel, its up to the toolkit. You could get something much better. Each application and each toolkit makes intelligent choices about how to handle latency issues. So for example one application might very aggressively cache if latencies are high, while another might be more worried about processing delays and thus might keep intermediate buffers shallow to reduce the effective latency as much as possible even though this means the buffer runs dry. Apple incidentally is currently doing some brilliant work on buffers taking ideas that Linux invented and making them practical. With Wayland Linux applications and thus users will be able to take advantage of these advances.
Yes it is. In my previous statement I chose QT and GTK as examples because they are so common. A user could have any number of applications using any number of GUI toolkits. Assuming they will all bother to implement their own remote access would way over-optimistic.
If an application is written using a toolkit that doesn't support remoting then the application doesn't support remoting by design. The major Linux toolkits are already working with the Wayland team they fully intend to support it. I'd assume that highly specialized toolkits which don't remote, don't remote because they can't tolerate latency. For example good touch toolkits might fail at 1ms latency, 1ms is too fast even for almost all LANs to keep up.
So let's use this example. Human brains aren't designed for touch latency... you are using a touch toolkit that would be unusable remotely. What's the problem if it doesn't remote?
If I can watch a high definition video feed in real time over the internet then I should be able to remotely display a desktop or a user should be able to remotely display a game. The two should not be mutually exclusive. Surely it is possible to fix this in a way that pleases the gamer without screwing it up for the remote desktop user.
It isn't possible to do both. I'll just repeat what I wrote in the post directly above, " There are advantages to splitting application and video buffers for network transparency. There are advantages to unifying application and video buffers for performance." You have to pick. Either the person who wants performance has to lose or the person who wants network transparency has to lose. There are lots of either / or choices in life, there are lots of either / or choices in designing a windowing system. You cannot build a system where everyone gets everything. And even if I were wrong, X11 most certainly is not such a system. In the world of 2015 X11 mostly sucks at everything but via. hacks is painfully being kept alive. The low level choices you keep dismissing fundamentally alter what the system is capable of doing. For you to get feature F Mr G has to not get feature H.
Wayland people are not taking away stuff to be mean or because they are lazy.
The recent OED has 171.5k words in it. Native speakers have a vocabulary of about 20k-35k words. Finally at least now you want to use 4 words not 3 and possibly one substitution trick.
lowest figure: 20k^3 = 8 trillion ~ 2^43 ~ 7 character random password highest figure: 171.5k^4 = 8.65^10^20 > 2^69 ~ 11 character random password
Humans generally don't remember random passwords very well. This ain't bad.
What purpose does the municipality serve other than to serve its inhabitants?
Well government's primary purpose is law enforcement and public essentials (like fire). In general America, particularly our red states like services to be provided by private organizations. But again the laws here don't prohibit a municipality from offering those services. You cited Tennessee. Tennessee prohibited public electric companies from offering those services without running it like a public utility. Which meant no cherry picking. They were however free to use another structure, like setting up a public corporation or a separate agency. Your description of USA laws are simply not true.
hese markets weren't served by anybody else, and still isn't).. Legislating against the electric company pulling the fibre
And that's not true either. In Tennessee it is perfectly legal for an electric company to operate an internet service in an area where private cable companies do not want to provide broadband. What they weren't allowed to do was cherry pick off areas that the cable companies did want. And in fact Tennessee just recently passed a law allowing electric companies to provide dark fiber without having to meet public standards, which is exactly what you are talking about with having multiple players. Municipalities even in Tennessee can operate dark fiber network they just can't provide a consumer level service.
But as that would lead to real competition, at a lower total cost, not crony capitalism, I don't have high hopes for you...
You are simply mischaracterizing American law and talking about how things that are perfectly legal and quite easy to do are impossible under American law. I'm not saying the situation is Europe may not be better, utilities work better with a more powerful and more coercive government. But I am saying that you are mischaracterizing the problems in the USA.
LA and Seattle don't have densities close to HK or Tokyo. HK is $200 / home to wire. But you are absolutely right those cities have densities that make replacement plausible.
New York has even better densities, it does has geological problems and incredibly old infrastructure. New York still has some of the public water using wooden pipes, I have no idea when they stopped using wood but.... However we are lucky because New York is right now doing a major build out in the poorer areas starting. The preliminary wiring for FIOS (that's not all the way to the door but having an access point for buildings) was $3.5b. So you are at several thousand / home. Over say 60 months $2k even without interest is going to have to be an extra $33/mo. Which is generally too much for to pool for poorer people which lengthens the payoff time, which slows down the rate of improvement which... The people living in poorer areas of New York could have FIOS in under a year (with some much sooner) if the city would mandate that building owners had to cooperate.
There is no question we have the technical ability to put in gigabit or heck potentially 10gigabit internet to every home if we were starting a network from scratch. If we were starting from scratch in 2015 we would likely do that. What I was arguing is the system we have in the USA is not the result or stupidity or corruption.
FTTP, the fiber is Title II FIOS the service is Title I
Which makes sense. But I don' see how that proves that the public has paid for the fiber that exists on modern broadband connections. You certainly could argue in a well populated area that's had broadband for 20 years that something like 3mb/sec broadband connections were semi-public (since things like the colo to remix signal were never public). If that's what you mean by copper... I guess one could grant that to smaller operators if it is still functioning and in the ground. But I'd assume that's sort of what happens it probably being sold to players like XO who are using it for lower cost business connections.
Everyone does that, even you. Only problem is you only do it for phone service, which used to be important. We've said that internet service is equally important, while you don't. That's the gist of the problem.
We do subsidize rural internet. There are several dollars per month used to pay for rural connections. Also LEC charges are designed to encourage telco expansion into rural areas and thus move money from the phone system to the business internet.
As for 3.52 MBps that's 2 T1s. In lots of rural areas the extra copper lying around make that sort of connection a potential, though generally the cost might be almost nothing to install but a 3 year commit at $300/mo. Again aimed more at business than residential but a farm could buy that sort of connection. Still more expensive but there is nothing like the EU to subsidize. You all get stuff for the taxes you pay.
And that's where your regulatory capture comes in. There have been numerous stories here on slasdot on states that have explicitly forbidden local municipalities to be involved in fibre/broadband, instead legislating that that can only be done by corporations. Who then don't actually deliver any infrastructure.
There is nothing to prevent a municipality from forming a public corporation and offering services that way. That is they can do it providing they are upfront about how much it is costing and how it is being paid for. We do that commonly for road systems which cost far more than internet. What the Republican states are concerned about is that there is not a situation where the municipality is hiding the cost of broadband by embedding it in other budget items that use the tax system to subsidize while at the same time pricing corporations out of the market.
In other words they don't want socialized internet. They also of course allow for subsidies to private companies to get them to build out. I may not agree but the situation is not quite what you say. Co-ops BTW are perfectly legal in the USA everywhere to the best of my knowledge.
So I'm disagreeing with you on the state of American law.
$50 for 100/100 is about what Americans pay in almost all areas. Certainly it is well above what Americans pay just for port excluding line. The issue of EU subsidies I think is important because I was trying to look at total cost not cost to consumer. A taxpayer subsidy is just cost shifting. That would be like Americans talking about how much cheaper cell phones are in the USA excluding the fact that $20 / mo of their bill goes to subsidizing the purchase price of the phone.
$2500 for a rural connection seems very cheap. I'd be curious how that is pricing out. I suspect that's being heavily subsidized somewhere. Again American consumers don't pay anywhere near that but they pay a higher monthly bill to cover the connection charge.
I'm not sure what a coop means. Fiber costs about $300/m to fully install. But 1km is still within the range of a fast local ethernet connection and that can be done in a way that's durable for about $10/m. Those are the sorts of prices American businesses pay for getting access from an access point. Possibly rural Sweden is more like the USA business market. Which BTW has lots of competition but the prices are way higher.
As for government subsidy, we don't have subsidy for internet in urban areas. We do have a tax (of a few dollars per months) that's collected in profitable area to help provide it in rural areas. Its possible that the numbers are being distorted by government in Sweden. As for oligarchy and regulatory capture.. I'm assuming you mean monopoly and regulatory capture. We don't have monopoly or much regulation for the business market and prices are much higher than residential cable companies. So for that explanation to work you would need to explain why in the absence of those two factors the same house has a higher cost of business ethernet. Or why small business ethernet (provided by the cable companies usually for about $10/mo more than residential) is so much cheaper than the business service. So for example
So for example in Verizon territory for $380 / mo you can get 500mb of FIOS business internet with QoS for phone and static IPs. That's about $100 more expensive than the residential version. It also is somewhere between 2x and 20x less expensive than buying a 500mb ethernet circuit (say for MPLS) from Verizon in the same areas. I.e. where we don't have monopoly or regulatory capture it costs more to buy the noncaptured service.
Also the dinosaurs they weren't preventing access in the sense we were talking about. If the municipality was being blocked from offering wifi then a local company had wired up the area. No one prevents access where they can't or won't provide service.
Slashdot Mirror
OK... it certainly is the case that Wayland remote will work worse with dumb terminal type setups. Wayland is assuming the the box remoting into is smart. A phone is plenty smart to run Wayland, and if you kept your applications light (i.e. about 10 years old) would be able handle the toolkits. So for your lapdock type setup you could actually run your desktop applications in a way that is comfortable over mobile data and not chew up insane amounts of data. Again as is usual for the actual use case you are describing Wayland is likely far better than X11. Not far better at doing things the X way but far better at doing the same function as long as you are willing to not cut against the grain.
As far as security goes the receiving machine can have an unwritable filesystem (or unwritable from the OS running Wayland) or be virtualized and just blow away and restore the image after use.... You can achieve the same security with smart as you do with dumb.
But if you want actually dumb, then you need to virtualize your screen. Then you talking something like VNC. Wayland makes use of smart so doesn't support dumb as well. Smart is the more common situation today....
Any toolkit can have Wayland remoting. That's going to be a standard part of writing new toolkits in say 10 years.
In theory Wayland supports that. In practice it isn't going to be what's going to happen so I don't consider it particularly relevant. In practice it happens at the toolkit level and applications pick up their remoting from their toolkit unless they want something more complex.
That's session sharing. What's better is not remoting the conversation to the computer but that the computer syncs with the phone and has a copy of the conversations at all times. Many messaging systems already provide that. I do that today. No reason to remote just push the data.
I disagree it makes the dream far more likely. To actually be remote you need good WAN behavior on high latency connections, like a cell phone. That's unfixable not available with X11. Everything else is just using a secure potentially unwritable image for remote machines (VM...) and enjoy. Yes when your main OS changes toolkits (something like KDE 5 to 6) you will need to update your dumb images to match but that's not hard in your scenario.
Server I think is trickier. Let me throw out a hypothetical for say 2028.
Samsung releases a 1024 core SOC which is cool enough it can be used in a blade. Intel is using 16 core Xeons that require a full 1U. The Samsung cores are say each 1/2 as fast as the Intel cores. Everything needs to be custom compiled for the hardware but Samsung has their own fully supported distribution which supports cloud foundry, open stack... The complexity of the x86 makes Intel emulating these designs impossible.
Now that I think could do it.
I'm relying on the author of every (or most every) toolkit to care. Once the toolkits remote you have better remoting on a per toolkit basis than you do under by X. Your hypothetical application author has to have chosen an obscure modern toolkit which doesn't remote. If they choose a common one it is going support Wayland. If they choose an old one it is going to support X. You are talking well under 1% of all applications and those likely designed not to remote.
I think you are confusing bandwidth and latency. Latencies on LANs are probably slightly higher than they were 25 years ago. Latencies on WANs aren't remotely close to LAN latencies 25 years ago, and are slowly creeping up not decreasing. Internationalization and additional layers of servers are mainly to blame. SIP has a hard 150ms barrier. This used to be no problem now with international especially to the 3rd world even 200ms variants aren't slow enough.
Moreover we don't have any solution to latency. While we might be able to half them through technology and better engineering to go beyond that we either need to shrink the planet or increase the speed of light.
I'm starting to think you are constructing your objections to be difficult. If you are an end user what do you care what sits on the hard drive? You install a mainstream distribution you install the standard toolkits, done. There is nothing to maintain beyond running Linux. You mentioned cut and past in earlier posts. The X-Server doesn't support any interaction beyond plain text, like clicking on applications starting the appropriate support libraries without those toolkits being installed. So you are doing this now. You are contradicting yourself on your use case. You can't have this being a feature you use in the last post and then in this one want to run without local toolkits. You don't have that now.
You are going eventually be able to construct a use case where X11 is better. I will freely acknowledge there exist possible use cases where X11 will be a better fit than Wayland. Say 1% or users. But by the same token I can easily construct a 100 use cases where X11 is terrible for every use case that exists on which Wayland introduces a slight problem. So those arguments don't do much. When you choose X11 you choose all those problems for other people. You need to argue that X11 is better than Wayland not that Wayland is imperfect. My opinion is that X11 mostly sucks at everything. It has been a disaster for Unix, forcing Unix to emulate hardware configurations that no one has used for two decades. In today's world X11 doesn't do anything well, and does most things far worse than any of the other mainstream competing graphical display systems.
And I'm including remoting in that. X11 doesn't even have a security layer or traffic shaping. SSH which is the dominant security layer breaks 3rd party traffic shaping. I'll start throwing out examples of non-fringe use cases where traffic shaping is needed like international or congestion and X11+Security will collapse.
So if you want to be remoting on a LAN not WAN, have a not quite dumb terminal but a Linux box that for some reason has enough of the toolkit installed to support the X-Server versions of applications but not the X-Client versions of those same applications, and want to run lots of applications from different sources then X11's remoting will work better. With a use case that important I'm shocked that the Wayland project hasn't been cancelled already. The realit
Of course if the dominant player cut their margins they can preserve their position with their least profitable, least demanding customer. That's always the case with disruption from below. Microsoft did precisely that with netbooks almost a decade ago where they allowed netbooks to:
a) drive down the price of OEM Windows ....
b) not allow them to raise the specs for years and thus made the XP -> Vista upgrade less advantageous while often equally painful.
c) by forcing Microsoft to focus down market created a bigger opening for Apple at the top of the market.
Absolutely if Intel choose to go after the ARM business they could. But Intel just turned Apple down on a fabrication deal. Intel wants their margins more than they want marketshare. Intel's least demand, lowest margin customers are ARM's high margin most demanding customers. That's how ARM slowly moves upmarket. That's how disruption from below works.
As for SOC for laptops. Here we disagree. The x86 market today has standardized hardware. Intel, Microsoft and Western Digital created a hardware / software standard that's lasted for a generation. But that hardware / software standard doesn't need to hold, and obviously wouldn't be holding if x86 is being replaced. I can easily imagine a future generation of SOC for systems with keyboards as much as they are useful in today's tablets. That doesn't mean today's SOCs are good enough, today's SOCs are barely good enough for Chromebooks. We know that the bottom rungs of laptop users were able to replace some or most of their usage with the current generation of iOS/Android tablets, if we picture SOCs 3x as functional...
I'm thinking of ARM as a classic disruptive technology: https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
i) ARM comes in first and takes customers who have requirements that x86 couldn't possibly satisfy: done
ii) ARM takes those customers who could be on x86 but gain tremendously from ARM: done
iii) ARM takes the least profitable least demanding customers from x86: happening with Chrome books -- in progress
iv) ARM takes over people core to x86 (laptops): not happening yet
v) ARM takes over more demanding users x86 desktop, server... : not close
-- this results in x86 becoming a niche product for the most demanding users
vi) ARM takes over the most demanding users extincting x86: not close
I'm saying I can see step iii becoming step iv. Of course ARM this year is not ready for step (v). But that's different than what the situation might look like 10 or 15 years out. If neither Windows nor Linux were tuned for x86 as the primary platform its dominance in server would be in more danger. If ARM vendors were moving $100b+ / yr in CPUs (double Intel's entire revenue) the server would be in more danger....
I was just using published benchmarks. What I've heard is that 20nm helped a bit, the GPU helped a lot. I hadn't heard anything about a decoder problem. So I meant what I wrote but I'm willing to be educated.
I haven't been following it. The D-1540 seems like a nice offering. Smartphones are now 1/2 of the entire consumer electronics industry. I wouldn't underestimate the money going into ARM.
As far as ARM in server where I think ARM is likely to expand to first would be laptop. HP Chromebook 11 for example already uses this processor. Then it moves up market taking over some mainstream laptops. I could easily see for by end of decade for Apple's laptop lineup:
ARM for Macbook (OSX or a variant of iOS)
Intel for Macbook Pro (OSX)
Apple's the bulk of all profits.
First off I want to point to one paragraph: Nineteen states have laws on the books that limit such networks. They range from strict prohibitions on any or most municipal broadband service (Texas and Nevada), to requirements that a municipality hold public hearings or a referendum before offering service, as in Alabama, Colorado, Minnesota and Virginia. At least 89 communities around the country have publicly owned fiber-optic networks.
As for this case of preemption in Tennessee this is kind of nuts but overturn or preempt is too simple. The FCC here (https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-preempts-laws-restricting-community-broadband-nctn) argued that Tennessee outright violated Federal law and told a municipality to go ahead and violate state law. What's important is the FCC argued that the restrictions limited competition and regulating competition is FCC not the states. The FCC however specifically stated the states can simply ban municipalities from offering broadband services. What they weren't allowing was the state to regulate the market in a way that differs from the FCC because that does fall under FCC jurisdiction.
So the FCC is allowing the states an out here if they really hate municipal broadband. North Carolina is more interesting because the FCC specifically listed some of the provisions of their law which were barriers to investment and others that were not. Because of the out, allowing the states to ban, you avoid many of the problems if the FCC had simply preempted. The way you were phrasing it Tennessee to resist might very well have the municipal officials arrested, though of course that would move the federal case from lazily working its way through the system to urgent. Tennessee also might simply refuse to regulate the new company at all, denying it any state protections. They could deny them any ability to borrow. ... That is Tennessee has the ability to defacto ban even if they can't dejure ban and thus the FCC was wise to recognize that.
I suspect the Sixth Circuit (USA federal court) where this case is heading is going to create a framework for how to handle this. Probably what they are going to say is the FCC is entitled to challenge state laws in federal court but not entitled to just tell municipalities to ignore laws the FCC disagrees with.
This is subtle and not the norm.
-- 100 towns * 5000 residential homes each * 2 gb/s * .2 average usage = extra 200k gbs of traffic or 200 pb/sec of traffic. That's a big deal.
Sorry that should be 200 tbs not pbs .
No it isn't. 25 years ago the home internet infrastructure didn't even exist. A few years later it would have been extra capacity at LECs since people were using the cooper phone lines more hours per day. A few years after that it would have been DSL and coax connections capable of 5mbs or less. All of which are totally worthless now. Payoff in 60 months was on the high end, the company needs to make some profit on their infrastructure spend. If people start demanding faster relative speeds that means faster upgrades the spend goes from 60 months down to 36 or so. I'm not picturing 300 months for decades if not a century.
100 towns * 5000 residential homes each * 2 gb/s * .2 average usage = extra 200k gbs of traffic or 200 pb/sec of traffic. That's a big deal.
Or since we are talking nationwide. America has 130m residences. .2 usage = 52 ebs of traffic. Our middle mile is remotely close to handling that.
130m* 2gb/sec *
We don't even have the technology to support a middle mile that large even if we were willing to spend a fortune. Now of course your point about delivering fiber capable of doing say 10gbs and only delivering 100mbs now is true. Any new infrastructure being put in in 2015 should be able to go faster than 1gbs. We agree there.
I'm having trouble with your pronouns who is us? You seem to be shifting from a NZ perspective to a USA perspective. Anyway... that's the economics. If American towns think they can get 50 years out of a fiber buy then they can certainly pay for it. But they don't so they won't. And that's the point of my posts. People think internet is cheap to provide while the reality is it is very expensive to provide and they are paying a fair estimate for what it costs given a reasonable payoff matrix. If you think the matrix is grossly mispriced then invest in telcos because they are sitting on a goldmine or own your own fiber / become an ISP. Which it appears you have.
I think what you are talking about is one case the Electric Power Board (EPB) of Chattanooga offering Internet and video service to residents. Absolutely terrific internet service. Comcast claimed they were using ratepayer funds. Ratepayer funds are from the state governments. Using them for a purpose not allowed by law is approaching embezzlement. When you talk about southern states there is also federal involvement since their utilities often came out of New Deal legislation.
The FCC can't strike down a state law. They can argue in court against it or work towards its repeal. They aren't that powerful.
The problem with American broadband there really isn't one. America given its population densities is a broadband success. We have a huge percentage of the population getting ever increasing speeds at a good price point. Its not perfect but I don't think of this as a failure.
The problem with American municipalities offering broadband is that they want to play fast and loose with funding. If there was a up or down vote on whether internet should be taxpayer supported the vote would be no. But cheap internet is very popular so if the municipality makes the funding mechanism opaque the taxpayer subsidy is much more popular. Basically the problem we always have with government: 70% of Americans think the government spends too much and needs to cut spending however the moment you name any specific government program we fund 70% of Americans think that's a good use of taxpayer money and support the spending. Internet is just one more example of the inconsistent beliefs about government spending of the middle 40% of American voters. Republicans are mostly opposed to those sorts of financing games to expand government while Democrats are mostly in favor.
The law allows municipalities to pay for internet. It allows for everything you suggest easily. What it mostly doesn't allow for in those states is making it opaque and without making it opaque it lacks enough public support to become policy. The FCC under a Democratic administration of course is going to support making it opaque since they strongly support better broadband as a public good.
Have you tried: Oracle VM Server for SPARC and Oracle Solaris Zones for virtualization? Anyway Oracle and Cloud Sigma both offer Solaris in the cloud. And of course there is nothing stopping you from upgrading him to a modern Solaris box.
This was exclusively for workstations but in terms of multi processor there definitely were multi-processor 486s sold. I had a buddy with 4x486. SCO was the typical OS for these boxes. OS/2 and Linux were both working on it and would achieve it.
Also also with SCO the x86/i860 combo was popular (for an exotic workstation). The 486 while having good floating point math sucked at vector math. The i860 while good at vector math was bad at multi-tasking. There were both motherboards and compilers to take advantage of this combo which was a winner. It allowed you to build a workstation for under $10k that was a bad version of MIPS style workstations.
No you couldn't. 16mb RAM was out the but was very expensive and many motherboards wouldn't support more than 4MB SIMMs (1 and 2MB SIMMS were still the norm for PCs). Good motherboards (in full tower cases) had at most 8 slots. So I'm going with 128MB as an upper limit.
Sun wasn't that. The 128 RAM wasn't cheap but the 2G HD meant they were skimping. I bet those systems were around $5-7k or so well under double what an x86 workstation would cost.
As for getting professors to give up old equipment, start metering the electricity and billing the department.
I'd take that bet. Don't forget how much faster the ARM chips are. For example the A7 is twice the speed of the A6 which is almost 3x the speed of the A5. Admittedly the A8 is only a 20% speed burst but that's not bad relative to x86 especially for an off year. We'll find out over the next decade plus: can you make ARM faster more easily than you can x86 more efficient? But I'd bet on ARM.
Remember KDE and Gnome cooperate and there is dbus. What would likely happen is something like this:
a) KDE desktop is running and you click on a Gnome application.
b) KDE passes a message to the local Gnome to handle remoting
c) local Gnome establishes a session with remote Gnome.
d) Those two communicate making the application effectively local
e) The Gnome applications displays on the KDE desktop using the tools they use today to do this sort of thing (dbus...)
So from an end user standpoint nothing changes
You could get a local feel, its up to the toolkit. You could get something much better. Each application and each toolkit makes intelligent choices about how to handle latency issues. So for example one application might very aggressively cache if latencies are high, while another might be more worried about processing delays and thus might keep intermediate buffers shallow to reduce the effective latency as much as possible even though this means the buffer runs dry. Apple incidentally is currently doing some brilliant work on buffers taking ideas that Linux invented and making them practical. With Wayland Linux applications and thus users will be able to take advantage of these advances.
If an application is written using a toolkit that doesn't support remoting then the application doesn't support remoting by design. The major Linux toolkits are already working with the Wayland team they fully intend to support it. I'd assume that highly specialized toolkits which don't remote, don't remote because they can't tolerate latency. For example good touch toolkits might fail at 1ms latency, 1ms is too fast even for almost all LANs to keep up.
So let's use this example. Human brains aren't designed for touch latency... you are using a touch toolkit that would be unusable remotely. What's the problem if it doesn't remote?
It isn't possible to do both. I'll just repeat what I wrote in the post directly above, " There are advantages to splitting application and video buffers for network transparency. There are advantages to unifying application and video buffers for performance." You have to pick. Either the person who wants performance has to lose or the person who wants network transparency has to lose. There are lots of either / or choices in life, there are lots of either / or choices in designing a windowing system. You cannot build a system where everyone gets everything. And even if I were wrong, X11 most certainly is not such a system. In the world of 2015 X11 mostly sucks at everything but via. hacks is painfully being kept alive. The low level choices you keep dismissing fundamentally alter what the system is capable of doing. For you to get feature F Mr G has to not get feature H.
Wayland people are not taking away stuff to be mean or because they are lazy.
The recent OED has 171.5k words in it. Native speakers have a vocabulary of about 20k-35k words. Finally at least now you want to use 4 words not 3 and possibly one substitution trick.
lowest figure: 20k^3 = 8 trillion ~ 2^43 ~ 7 character random password
highest figure: 171.5k^4 = 8.65^10^20 > 2^69 ~ 11 character random password
Humans generally don't remember random passwords very well. This ain't bad.
Well government's primary purpose is law enforcement and public essentials (like fire). In general America, particularly our red states like services to be provided by private organizations. But again the laws here don't prohibit a municipality from offering those services. You cited Tennessee. Tennessee prohibited public electric companies from offering those services without running it like a public utility. Which meant no cherry picking. They were however free to use another structure, like setting up a public corporation or a separate agency. Your description of USA laws are simply not true.
And that's not true either. In Tennessee it is perfectly legal for an electric company to operate an internet service in an area where private cable companies do not want to provide broadband. What they weren't allowed to do was cherry pick off areas that the cable companies did want. And in fact Tennessee just recently passed a law allowing electric companies to provide dark fiber without having to meet public standards, which is exactly what you are talking about with having multiple players. Municipalities even in Tennessee can operate dark fiber network they just can't provide a consumer level service.
You are simply mischaracterizing American law and talking about how things that are perfectly legal and quite easy to do are impossible under American law. I'm not saying the situation is Europe may not be better, utilities work better with a more powerful and more coercive government. But I am saying that you are mischaracterizing the problems in the USA.
LA and Seattle don't have densities close to HK or Tokyo. HK is $200 / home to wire. But you are absolutely right those cities have densities that make replacement plausible.
New York has even better densities, it does has geological problems and incredibly old infrastructure. New York still has some of the public water using wooden pipes, I have no idea when they stopped using wood but.... However we are lucky because New York is right now doing a major build out in the poorer areas starting. The preliminary wiring for FIOS (that's not all the way to the door but having an access point for buildings) was $3.5b. So you are at several thousand / home. Over say 60 months $2k even without interest is going to have to be an extra $33/mo. Which is generally too much for to pool for poorer people which lengthens the payoff time, which slows down the rate of improvement which... The people living in poorer areas of New York could have FIOS in under a year (with some much sooner) if the city would mandate that building owners had to cooperate.
There is no question we have the technical ability to put in gigabit or heck potentially 10gigabit internet to every home if we were starting a network from scratch. If we were starting from scratch in 2015 we would likely do that. What I was arguing is the system we have in the USA is not the result or stupidity or corruption.
If you read the article it is a bit more nuanced:
FTTP, the fiber is Title II
FIOS the service is Title I
Which makes sense. But I don' see how that proves that the public has paid for the fiber that exists on modern broadband connections. You certainly could argue in a well populated area that's had broadband for 20 years that something like 3mb/sec broadband connections were semi-public (since things like the colo to remix signal were never public). If that's what you mean by copper... I guess one could grant that to smaller operators if it is still functioning and in the ground. But I'd assume that's sort of what happens it probably being sold to players like XO who are using it for lower cost business connections.
We do subsidize rural internet. There are several dollars per month used to pay for rural connections. Also LEC charges are designed to encourage telco expansion into rural areas and thus move money from the phone system to the business internet.
As for 3.52 MBps that's 2 T1s. In lots of rural areas the extra copper lying around make that sort of connection a potential, though generally the cost might be almost nothing to install but a 3 year commit at $300/mo. Again aimed more at business than residential but a farm could buy that sort of connection. Still more expensive but there is nothing like the EU to subsidize. You all get stuff for the taxes you pay.
There is nothing to prevent a municipality from forming a public corporation and offering services that way. That is they can do it providing they are upfront about how much it is costing and how it is being paid for. We do that commonly for road systems which cost far more than internet. What the Republican states are concerned about is that there is not a situation where the municipality is hiding the cost of broadband by embedding it in other budget items that use the tax system to subsidize while at the same time pricing corporations out of the market.
In other words they don't want socialized internet. They also of course allow for subsidies to private companies to get them to build out. I may not agree but the situation is not quite what you say. Co-ops BTW are perfectly legal in the USA everywhere to the best of my knowledge.
So I'm disagreeing with you on the state of American law.
$50 for 100/100 is about what Americans pay in almost all areas. Certainly it is well above what Americans pay just for port excluding line. The issue of EU subsidies I think is important because I was trying to look at total cost not cost to consumer. A taxpayer subsidy is just cost shifting. That would be like Americans talking about how much cheaper cell phones are in the USA excluding the fact that $20 / mo of their bill goes to subsidizing the purchase price of the phone.
$2500 for a rural connection seems very cheap. I'd be curious how that is pricing out. I suspect that's being heavily subsidized somewhere. Again American consumers don't pay anywhere near that but they pay a higher monthly bill to cover the connection charge.
I'm not sure what a coop means. Fiber costs about $300/m to fully install. But 1km is still within the range of a fast local ethernet connection and that can be done in a way that's durable for about $10/m. Those are the sorts of prices American businesses pay for getting access from an access point. Possibly rural Sweden is more like the USA business market. Which BTW has lots of competition but the prices are way higher.
As for government subsidy, we don't have subsidy for internet in urban areas. We do have a tax (of a few dollars per months) that's collected in profitable area to help provide it in rural areas. Its possible that the numbers are being distorted by government in Sweden. As for oligarchy and regulatory capture.. I'm assuming you mean monopoly and regulatory capture. We don't have monopoly or much regulation for the business market and prices are much higher than residential cable companies. So for that explanation to work you would need to explain why in the absence of those two factors the same house has a higher cost of business ethernet. Or why small business ethernet (provided by the cable companies usually for about $10/mo more than residential) is so much cheaper than the business service. So for example
So for example in Verizon territory for $380 / mo you can get 500mb of FIOS business internet with QoS for phone and static IPs. That's about $100 more expensive than the residential version. It also is somewhere between 2x and 20x less expensive than buying a 500mb ethernet circuit (say for MPLS) from Verizon in the same areas. I.e. where we don't have monopoly or regulatory capture it costs more to buy the noncaptured service.
http://www.statista.com/statis...
http://a.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/f...
Also the dinosaurs they weren't preventing access in the sense we were talking about. If the municipality was being blocked from offering wifi then a local company had wired up the area. No one prevents access where they can't or won't provide service.