We are agreeing on a lot. Let me start on what could be another area of agreement?
Network transparency supporters are not necessarily X11 supporters. This isn't X11 vs Wayland. It is network transparency vs not. I would love to see a good alternative for X11 take over (be it Wayland or otherwise), but I still want my network transparency. In light of that, the debate isn't whether X11 hampers functionality. It is whether the network transparency should be widely supported in the Linux GUI ecosystem be that via X11 or something else. (I'd love to say "via Wayland", but the developers seem dead set against it.)
Let me just clarify something here since you seem like a reasonable guy. What you seem to mean by "network transparency" is not full network transparency but rather "the ability to run applications remotely" i.e. on a per application basis being able to run applications on your native desktop and get sane (but not necessarily great) performance. That Wayland does intend to support, though indirectly. They want that supported with a mechanism similar to Microsoft's RDB. So for example at the Gnome level or the KDE level that sort of remote application management would exist. And similar to DBUS the hope then would be a cross Unix mechanism. So to use your example Firefox could be remoted on KDE or Gnome even though it is using the XUL widget set.
So they are 100% against network transparency, they aren't opposed to remote applications. When the Wayland people say they are opposed to network transparency they mean in the fully formal sense: having the application buffer and the video card buffer not have to reside on the same machine. That's the feature of X11 they want removed, not remote applications. I.E. the debate is over the mechanism by which X11 provides remote applications not over whether remote applications should be offered. They aren't going to be offered by Wayland, but they are going to be offered by Wayland GUI's (like in my hypothetical Gnome 5). For that to happen though the GUIs have had to at least be seriously supporting Wayland features.
. However, if Wayland lives up to its promise and is much better and easier to support and maintain than X11, then there will be a strong incentive to move to scenario (b). Not only is having the community continue to support both would a waste of developer resources, but with all the PR that Wayland has been getting, there are plenty of developers (some justified and some not) just waiting to play with the new shiny. This would be a disaster for network transparency
Let me just compound this by mentioning the strongest support for Wayland is coming from within the X.org development group. I think it is quite likely that when Wayland hits 1/2 usable, Wayland will pull way ahead because:
a) Wayland allows Linux GUI guys to emulate the mechanism used by Microsoft and Apple and not have to invent technology. b) X11 is allowed to stagnate, since the developers who actually know a lot about X11 are focused on Wayland.
Most of the anti-Wayland people believe Wayland will be terrible and this won't happen. So it can't be assumed in these debates. So if by 2015 Wayland is on par with X11, by 2020 there will be no comparison and Wayland will be well more than a decade ahead.
As far as your firefox example, I understand. And in fact I used Firefox over X11 this year and it saved me having to think of an alternative approach. Ultimately though there are 3 situations:
a) Running an application on a machine sharing ram with the video card. b) Running applications on a machine close enough to the video card that the latency between them is lowish and the bandwidth is plentiful and performance is irrelevant. c) Running applications on a machine where either the latency is high or the bandwidth is limited
X11 does terrific for (b) in exchange for damaging (a) and (c). X11 was designed in a world where (b) is common. Your example is from the world of (b). Back in t
The serious answer has to do with price and how they co-market with carrier based plans. There is a natural continuum between dumb phones through feature phones through smart phones that is fuzzy. But for the postpay market there is not a continuum in pricing the phone has to target one market or the other.
There used to be dumb phones which made calls and did SMS; feature phones which had other cool stuff like camera apps, appointment books, music... and phones on 2G data plans like Blackberry, which was often called "Blackberry data". Any phone that also used Blackberry data was a smart phone.
This isTomi Ahonen BS. There is no skype boycott. Verizon is actively looking to get an Windows Phone. Nokia doesn't make a CDMA+LTE phone, which is why Verizon doesn't carry them. There is no boycott.
you would have to make every app keep supporting X just to get the network transparency.
Actually no. That's one of the major advantages of X11 over something like VNC, that remote applications are at the application level not the desktop level. Its entirely possible that only a handful of applications support X and those are network transparent. We have framebuffer applications today on Linux and those are not network transparent even though the vast majority of applications are. Network transparency is a per app choice, not an OS wide choice.
And I certainly wasn't suggesting they implement their own solution. In 2015 and for many years thereafter you'll still have a situation where people are running X11 on top of Wayland. For those apps that need transparency (which I contend is few or none) they offer to compile to a X11 version. For example on OSX the xplanet port can compile to an x11 version an aqua version or both using a shared library. This situation could and would persist for many years on Linux.
So no, I'm not expecting every application to support both X and Wayland. I agree that's not going to happen. And moreover it defeats the purpose. Once Wayland exists it is going to quickly (say within 5 years) offer video services that X11 doesn't. And applications are going to want to take advantage of those services. It that doesn't happen, Wayland is a failed project. There are two reasonable intermediate states IMHO once Linux desktops are X11 running on top of Wayland which I think will happen in this order:
a) Linux desktops run mostly as X11, with a few high performance apps running at the Wayland level and not using X11. Which is essentially the situation we have today but with say 3-10x as many applications using the local system. b) Linux desktops run Wayland with a few apps that want to support network transparency still using the legacy X11 interface.
I think getting to (a) is absolutely vital to Linux, because right now there is no good solution to those application that need performance. I'm not sure where you stand on the issue of permanently unsolvable performance problems with X11 which impact high performance applications. In my option they exist and those impacts are about to get much worse as we double pixel density, moving to "retina" displays. In theory at that point there is going to be a low number of applications. Part of this debate is a question of fact. The X11 supporters argue that there are no high performance applications damaged by X11 and here would be their chance to prove it (though Apple also creates an equally good chance today where you have an excellent local system right next to an excellent X11, window manager). Since in the case of Linux, we are talking open source here, and X11 developers who believe that network transparency is important or even ideologically wanted to prevent (b) could port those high performance applications from Wayland to X11.
The next step is that the GUIs (KDE, Gnome, LXDE, XFCE) create Wayland versions and either do or do not have a way of compiling themselves to X11. At that point, during the move from (a) to (b) end users really do have choices. This will be a point where end users are going to get to vote. And that was my point to the GP post who was concerned that end users don't get any kind of meaningful say. Lets say that Gnome 4 can be compiled to X11 and Wayland how people respond determines if Gnome 5: i) doesn't supports X11 at all ii) supports X11 with greatly reduced functionality iii) supports X11 but with slightly reduced functionality iv) supports X11 with full functionality
And again doing this sort of legwork to make sure Gnome 5 supports X11 is something X11 supporters can do (assuming their theory is correct that X11 doesn't hamper functionality).
The more I look into Wayland the less I like it. If you're going to go to the trouble of rendering everything in OpenGL of some sort, then why not commit to it and process out everything as OpenGL commands, and then let us stream that from client to server? That to me, seems like the more sensible approach if you wanted to simplify X, since it doesn't eliminate functionality, but it does put everything in a language which can then be tackled by the rendering device however it wants. Wayland seems like it'll eventually head that way, but it's going to be left stuck with applications drawing themselves as big bitmaps to pixel buffers - blowing away a nice fast user experience when remoting.
Not in specific but in general that's the way Wayland is heading. Implementing something like RDP. So high level commands go between client and server and the client handles complex rendering. There are no pixel buffers being passed. But to do that requires going above the composition engine, the RDP level would exist at the GUI i.e. the Waylnad versions of Gnome or KDE not at the composer that wouldn't know the source of the high level commands.
Damaging in what way? When confronted with policies designed to politically disenfranchise blacks those you don't consider damaging.
As for the origins of racial slavery no, actually it was originally quite nationalistic. That unchristian peoples could be enslaved, and then later extended to race as we mean it.
That's an incredibly narrow definition of racism. Under that definition the institution of racial slavery wasn't racist since it was motivated by economic objectives.
You're wrong. They aren't part of the design of MeeGo. Apple in their filings indicated they weren't part of the design as evidence against the very claim that there was no other way to implement these things or that Apple's inventions were inevitable.
As for the agreement having legal weight. Yes. Those are signed submitted documents to a court. They have weight. What's nice is that Tizen is based on MeeGo + Bada + Android. So there is a possible successor to Android (i.e. app compatible) which has an interface which isn't based on Apple's design even by their own admission.
swipe to unlock
MeeGo is double press to unlock
overscroll
AFAIK Apple isn't claiming overscroll but overscroll bounce. Motorola agrees they infringed on this, took it out and the debate is over how much the penalty should be (Apple wants $2.05 per device Motorola thinks it should be pennies). But no, MeeGo doesn't have overscroll bounce.
The only smartphone in existence would be the iPhone, and they would hold so many patents that nobody but Apple could make smart devices that are usable.
No. RIM and MeeGo would be around offering really good alternatives, MeeGo / N9 a better gui than iPhone. Symbian smart phones would be thriving at the lower end of the market where cheap Android had cut them off. Android might even exist but with a different UI. For example Samsung continues development with their F700 UI and Android comes out with a calendar centric approach i.e. smart phones as advanced PIMs.
They have an advanced settings tab. Its called the developer's SDK and lets you modify anything you want on your phone or up to 99 other phones you support.
You are getting a government end to end fibre solution! That's excellent.
Copper btw is a few dollars a lb for scrap. They'll leave the expensive to replace wires in place and go after the cheap stuff where they can get quantity.
How exactly is it getting worse for them everyday? Lets take the USA. When Android came out Apple was 25.3% of the smartphone market. Today they are 31.6%. Android has grown but RIM, Microsoft and Palm have lost share.
A few years ago when the iPhone was a much smaller fraction of cell phones the iPhone store outsold the Nokia Ovi, Blackberry and Android store combined about 7x over. That more or less hasn't changed. There is no evidence yet that the group of people willing to buy software aren't disproportionate concentrated among Apple buyers.
We see the same thing on the PC side. Apples are 12% of the PC market but well over 90% of the laptops over $1000.
If it is an idealogical must that has nothing to do with actual functionality that's your right. If the issue is one of functionality however, there isn't actually any loss.
There are MVNOs that have done this. And the only carrier though is T-Mobile and they have repeatedly indicated that it has hurt their business. Not having the iPhone lowers the status of the carrier.
First off the way this is supposed to be done is you are supposed to be using an application for both your mac and your ipad. AC's suggestion of Keynote was exactly right. If you don't want to do that, powerpoint to video works fine even for large complex powerpoints.
The problem you were having isn't from a filesystem. If you really want a filesystem there are plenty that are user friendly like phoneview.
And why not? Democrats do exactly the same thing when they can get away with it.
That's provably false in Ohio. Democrats did not vote to restrict voting in republican districts.
So try again. Republicans are voting to give white people greater voting rights that minorities. No question they are doing it for other objectives. But your original claim was that Republicans wanted a race blind society. Not a society where explicitly racist policy was fine as long as the underlying motivation wasn't racist.
Apple has already agreed the N9 smartphone interface developed independently of Apple. That's an excellent high quality (possibly better than iPhone interface) that is cheaply available with its own look and feel that works with Linux and could easily run Android apps that can be out in no time. Even if Apple were to win this is not the end of the world.
How good is the QT support for Core Audio, Core Video, Core Animations? QT like most generic widgets offers a "least common denominator" approach except on its native platform X11/Linux.
How many of the best Mac and Windows applications use QT? QT is likely the best non OS specific C++ widget set out there. That doesn't mean it holds a candle to platform specific.
Slashdot Mirror
We are agreeing on a lot. Let me start on what could be another area of agreement?
Network transparency supporters are not necessarily X11 supporters. This isn't X11 vs Wayland. It is network transparency vs not. I would love to see a good alternative for X11 take over (be it Wayland or otherwise), but I still want my network transparency. In light of that, the debate isn't whether X11 hampers functionality. It is whether the network transparency should be widely supported in the Linux GUI ecosystem be that via X11 or something else. (I'd love to say "via Wayland", but the developers seem dead set against it.)
Let me just clarify something here since you seem like a reasonable guy. What you seem to mean by "network transparency" is not full network transparency but rather "the ability to run applications remotely" i.e. on a per application basis being able to run applications on your native desktop and get sane (but not necessarily great) performance. That Wayland does intend to support, though indirectly. They want that supported with a mechanism similar to Microsoft's RDB. So for example at the Gnome level or the KDE level that sort of remote application management would exist. And similar to DBUS the hope then would be a cross Unix mechanism. So to use your example Firefox could be remoted on KDE or Gnome even though it is using the XUL widget set.
So they are 100% against network transparency, they aren't opposed to remote applications. When the Wayland people say they are opposed to network transparency they mean in the fully formal sense: having the application buffer and the video card buffer not have to reside on the same machine. That's the feature of X11 they want removed, not remote applications. I.E. the debate is over the mechanism by which X11 provides remote applications not over whether remote applications should be offered. They aren't going to be offered by Wayland, but they are going to be offered by Wayland GUI's (like in my hypothetical Gnome 5). For that to happen though the GUIs have had to at least be seriously supporting Wayland features.
. However, if Wayland lives up to its promise and is much better and easier to support and maintain than X11, then there will be a strong incentive to move to scenario (b). Not only is having the community continue to support both would a waste of developer resources, but with all the PR that Wayland has been getting, there are plenty of developers (some justified and some not) just waiting to play with the new shiny. This would be a disaster for network transparency
Let me just compound this by mentioning the strongest support for Wayland is coming from within the X.org development group. I think it is quite likely that when Wayland hits 1/2 usable, Wayland will pull way ahead because:
a) Wayland allows Linux GUI guys to emulate the mechanism used by Microsoft and Apple and not have to invent technology.
b) X11 is allowed to stagnate, since the developers who actually know a lot about X11 are focused on Wayland.
Most of the anti-Wayland people believe Wayland will be terrible and this won't happen. So it can't be assumed in these debates. So if by 2015 Wayland is on par with X11, by 2020 there will be no comparison and Wayland will be well more than a decade ahead.
As far as your firefox example, I understand. And in fact I used Firefox over X11 this year and it saved me having to think of an alternative approach. Ultimately though there are 3 situations:
a) Running an application on a machine sharing ram with the video card.
b) Running applications on a machine close enough to the video card that the latency between them is lowish and the bandwidth is plentiful and performance is irrelevant.
c) Running applications on a machine where either the latency is high or the bandwidth is limited
X11 does terrific for (b) in exchange for damaging (a) and (c). X11 was designed in a world where (b) is common. Your example is from the world of (b). Back in t
The serious answer has to do with price and how they co-market with carrier based plans. There is a natural continuum between dumb phones through feature phones through smart phones that is fuzzy. But for the postpay market there is not a continuum in pricing the phone has to target one market or the other.
The American idea is very simply.
There used to be dumb phones which made calls and did SMS; feature phones which had other cool stuff like camera apps, appointment books, music... and phones on 2G data plans like Blackberry, which was often called "Blackberry data". Any phone that also used Blackberry data was a smart phone.
This isTomi Ahonen BS. There is no skype boycott. Verizon is actively looking to get an Windows Phone. Nokia doesn't make a CDMA+LTE phone, which is why Verizon doesn't carry them. There is no boycott.
Let me start with your last line:
you would have to make every app keep supporting X just to get the network transparency.
Actually no. That's one of the major advantages of X11 over something like VNC, that remote applications are at the application level not the desktop level. Its entirely possible that only a handful of applications support X and those are network transparent. We have framebuffer applications today on Linux and those are not network transparent even though the vast majority of applications are. Network transparency is a per app choice, not an OS wide choice.
And I certainly wasn't suggesting they implement their own solution. In 2015 and for many years thereafter you'll still have a situation where people are running X11 on top of Wayland. For those apps that need transparency (which I contend is few or none) they offer to compile to a X11 version. For example on OSX the xplanet port can compile to an x11 version an aqua version or both using a shared library. This situation could and would persist for many years on Linux.
So no, I'm not expecting every application to support both X and Wayland. I agree that's not going to happen. And moreover it defeats the purpose. Once Wayland exists it is going to quickly (say within 5 years) offer video services that X11 doesn't. And applications are going to want to take advantage of those services. It that doesn't happen, Wayland is a failed project. There are two reasonable intermediate states IMHO once Linux desktops are X11 running on top of Wayland which I think will happen in this order:
a) Linux desktops run mostly as X11, with a few high performance apps running at the Wayland level and not using X11. Which is essentially the situation we have today but with say 3-10x as many applications using the local system.
b) Linux desktops run Wayland with a few apps that want to support network transparency still using the legacy X11 interface.
I think getting to (a) is absolutely vital to Linux, because right now there is no good solution to those application that need performance. I'm not sure where you stand on the issue of permanently unsolvable performance problems with X11 which impact high performance applications. In my option they exist and those impacts are about to get much worse as we double pixel density, moving to "retina" displays. In theory at that point there is going to be a low number of applications. Part of this debate is a question of fact. The X11 supporters argue that there are no high performance applications damaged by X11 and here would be their chance to prove it (though Apple also creates an equally good chance today where you have an excellent local system right next to an excellent X11, window manager). Since in the case of Linux, we are talking open source here, and X11 developers who believe that network transparency is important or even ideologically wanted to prevent (b) could port those high performance applications from Wayland to X11.
The next step is that the GUIs (KDE, Gnome, LXDE, XFCE) create Wayland versions and either do or do not have a way of compiling themselves to X11. At that point, during the move from (a) to (b) end users really do have choices. This will be a point where end users are going to get to vote. And that was my point to the GP post who was concerned that end users don't get any kind of meaningful say. Lets say that Gnome 4 can be compiled to X11 and Wayland how people respond determines if Gnome 5:
i) doesn't supports X11 at all
ii) supports X11 with greatly reduced functionality
iii) supports X11 but with slightly reduced functionality
iv) supports X11 with full functionality
And again doing this sort of legwork to make sure Gnome 5 supports X11 is something X11 supporters can do (assuming their theory is correct that X11 doesn't hamper functionality).
The more I look into Wayland the less I like it. If you're going to go to the trouble of rendering everything in OpenGL of some sort, then why not commit to it and process out everything as OpenGL commands, and then let us stream that from client to server?
That to me, seems like the more sensible approach if you wanted to simplify X, since it doesn't eliminate functionality, but it does put everything in a language which can then be tackled by the rendering device however it wants. Wayland seems like it'll eventually head that way, but it's going to be left stuck with applications drawing themselves as big bitmaps to pixel buffers - blowing away a nice fast user experience when remoting.
Not in specific but in general that's the way Wayland is heading. Implementing something like RDP. So high level commands go between client and server and the client handles complex rendering. There are no pixel buffers being passed. But to do that requires going above the composition engine, the RDP level would exist at the GUI i.e. the Waylnad versions of Gnome or KDE not at the composer that wouldn't know the source of the high level commands.
Damaging in what way? When confronted with policies designed to politically disenfranchise blacks those you don't consider damaging.
As for the origins of racial slavery no, actually it was originally quite nationalistic. That unchristian peoples could be enslaved, and then later extended to race as we mean it.
That's an incredibly narrow definition of racism. Under that definition the institution of racial slavery wasn't racist since it was motivated by economic objectives.
You're wrong. They aren't part of the design of MeeGo. Apple in their filings indicated they weren't part of the design as evidence against the very claim that there was no other way to implement these things or that Apple's inventions were inevitable.
You can see the interface for MeeGo: http://swipe.nokia.com/
As for the agreement having legal weight. Yes. Those are signed submitted documents to a court. They have weight. What's nice is that Tizen is based on MeeGo + Bada + Android. So there is a possible successor to Android (i.e. app compatible) which has an interface which isn't based on Apple's design even by their own admission.
swipe to unlock
MeeGo is double press to unlock
overscroll
AFAIK Apple isn't claiming overscroll but overscroll bounce. Motorola agrees they infringed on this, took it out and the debate is over how much the penalty should be (Apple wants $2.05 per device Motorola thinks it should be pennies). But no, MeeGo doesn't have overscroll bounce.
The only smartphone in existence would be the iPhone, and they would hold so many patents that nobody but Apple could make smart devices that are usable.
No. RIM and MeeGo would be around offering really good alternatives, MeeGo / N9 a better gui than iPhone. Symbian smart phones would be thriving at the lower end of the market where cheap Android had cut them off. Android might even exist but with a different UI. For example Samsung continues development with their F700 UI and Android comes out with a calendar centric approach i.e. smart phones as advanced PIMs.
They have an advanced settings tab. Its called the developer's SDK and lets you modify anything you want on your phone or up to 99 other phones you support.
You are getting a government end to end fibre solution! That's excellent.
Copper btw is a few dollars a lb for scrap. They'll leave the expensive to replace wires in place and go after the cheap stuff where they can get quantity.
Look at the lines on the bottom, the port doesn't fit.
But if you consider that the ideal layout, Lenovo's ultra-books are always available. Apple does this year still sell a line with all those ports: http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/features/13-and-15-inch/
OK then why aren't those aspects present in the nokia N9 design for MeeGo?
How exactly is it getting worse for them everyday? Lets take the USA. When Android came out Apple was 25.3% of the smartphone market. Today they are 31.6%. Android has grown but RIM, Microsoft and Palm have lost share.
A few years ago when the iPhone was a much smaller fraction of cell phones the iPhone store outsold the Nokia Ovi, Blackberry and Android store combined about 7x over. That more or less hasn't changed. There is no evidence yet that the group of people willing to buy software aren't disproportionate concentrated among Apple buyers.
We see the same thing on the PC side. Apples are 12% of the PC market but well over 90% of the laptops over $1000.
If it is an idealogical must that has nothing to do with actual functionality that's your right. If the issue is one of functionality however, there isn't actually any loss.
As for why you are wrong that there shouldn't be an ethernet port: http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/07/dsc01883-copy-1342021663.jpg
That's a picture of the Lenovo ultrabook, which is actually slightly thicker than the rMBP. I think the problem with include one is obvious.
There are MVNOs that have done this. And the only carrier though is T-Mobile and they have repeatedly indicated that it has hurt their business. Not having the iPhone lowers the status of the carrier.
First off the way this is supposed to be done is you are supposed to be using an application for both your mac and your ipad. AC's suggestion of Keynote was exactly right. If you don't want to do that, powerpoint to video works fine even for large complex powerpoints.
The problem you were having isn't from a filesystem. If you really want a filesystem there are plenty that are user friendly like phoneview.
For instance shipping a new notebook with out an Ethernet port
I own that notebook. I carry an ethernet cable with me. And now at the end of the ethernet cable I have an adapter. Not a terrible sacrifice.
The operators have put their Apple subsidy for the iPhone 4S phone at $17/mo & $420. Considering the customer then pays $199... Yeah $600+
And why not? Democrats do exactly the same thing when they can get away with it.
That's provably false in Ohio. Democrats did not vote to restrict voting in republican districts.
So try again. Republicans are voting to give white people greater voting rights that minorities. No question they are doing it for other objectives. But your original claim was that Republicans wanted a race blind society. Not a society where explicitly racist policy was fine as long as the underlying motivation wasn't racist.
Apple has already agreed the N9 smartphone interface developed independently of Apple. That's an excellent high quality (possibly better than iPhone interface) that is cheaply available with its own look and feel that works with Linux and could easily run Android apps that can be out in no time. Even if Apple were to win this is not the end of the world.
How good is the QT support for Core Audio, Core Video, Core Animations? QT like most generic widgets offers a "least common denominator" approach except on its native platform X11/Linux.
How many of the best Mac and Windows applications use QT? QT is likely the best non OS specific C++ widget set out there. That doesn't mean it holds a candle to platform specific.