No you can't. You need the X11 client installed to talk the X protocol. You don't need to be running a desktop (X11 server) but you absolutely need X11.
but why would I would to exchange something thats imperfect for something that apart from eye candy potential had very reduced functionality and is clearly broken from a network point of view.
Why would I want to trade in my boat to ride on roads when it works well on rivers? Wayland is not designed for remote applications for those applications there will be a downgrade. If this is a big deal to the applications you use they wont' switch away from X11 and the whole thing won't matter.
There won't be any impact on applications designed for network transparency they will just stay with X11. Wayland supports X11 apps, X11 won't support Wayland apps.
It will get OpenGL rather quickly, likely long before the mainstream distributions switch. Remember the GUI libraries have to switch and then the GUIs before the distributions would even consider it.
No one has any idea how to make an X11 server reliable enough and secure enough to have access to the kernel on the majority of machines. Further the kernel group has never expressed interest in allowing a change like that. Lets stick to discussing technology we know how to make, otherwise I can discuss my windowing system with built in teleportation to resolve the network transparency need.
For applications that are used remotely they just stay on X11. Wayland will have an X11 the way OSX does now. For applications written for Wayland yeah you likely will need a VNC style solution.
You are absolutely right that stuff could be added to X and compatibility maintained if that were a high priority. And there is no reason the invention of Wayland prevents that from happening. X will be free to mature if there remains an application market that needs network transparency.
Wayland is mainly a step back, in that it discards network transparency but at this point even phones do their own rendering. Server side renders mostly don't seem to matter and for client server the web seems to good enough.
Huh? X11 works fine with OSX. You get a window manager that speaks Aqua so even cut and paste works. Heck if some application wanted to they could even implement a remote drag and drop. You get a access to apps and a reasonable menu. Finally of course you can run a Unix Window manager in full screen mode.
VNC is going to work the same way it does with Windows or MacOSX which doesn't involve low level support. VNC is an alternative to Network transparency.
Wayland is actually simpler than X. That being said, I think it will be a very very long time, like a generation minimum, till X.org doesn't have an X for Linux. As far as games Wayland is a pure advantage.
Wayland offers X11 support, Linux post Wayland will be when it switches roughly as interoperable as it is now. The problem will be in the other direction as apps start to migrate to Wayland.
I get where you are going in that handing over the password would be an act of Computer Fraud against Facebook.... that's a stretch but yeah what the heck it might work.
Why would Facebook need separate rules? Facebook isn't any different than email or paper letters.
Let me just take your question. The rules regarding email and the rules regarding paper letters are entirely different. The rules regarding email aren't entirely settled either. But more importantly in both the case of a paper letter and the case of an email there are automatic intended private recipients unless it is sent to a public list. Should facebook be treated like an email sent a public list? Or to take the paper analogy should a facebook post be treated like a published letter or like a private letter?
It's not the medium that matters, but the actions taken. If I blackmail you, it's not much different whether I do it by phone, email, UPS, SMS, or Facebook.
Actually let me just point out even your example is not true. If I do blackmail in person that's a state issue. If I do it by mail or wire that's quite often mail and wire fraud and suddenly becomes a federal crime as well. If I do it by Facebook, it is entirely unclear who has jurisdiction, what state did this take place in?
Judges can't demand a FB password without giving 5th amendment protections after a 5th amendment claim is made. She wasn't subject to a criminal investigation, that wouldn't apply.
Did you actually get a judgement against your company or did the judge simply refuse to dismiss the case. The burdon for dismissing a case is high, the burdon for winning a case is high.
Why it is considerable acceptable is that Facebook is becoming a major factor in social interaction. Events are occurring on Facebook. And we have no body of law of how Facebook interactions are to be treated:
a) Are Facebook posts that are public subject to the same sort of rules as newspaper articles? b) Are Facebook posts to be treated with the same seriousness as personal letters? c) Are Facebook posts about work related activities to be considered work related materials and subject to the much broader rules governing work products?
Funny enough there is a legal term for that "tortious interference". That is the act of encouraging someone to break a contract. She could have raised that position. Of course there is still the standing issue of whether account agreements are actually contracts at all but...
The point of the graph shows that the two markets are still quite competitive. The smartphone market is having to convince dumb phone users to cross over, that is where the customers come from. GP was arguing that dumb phones were already irrelevant.
If you want sales at any given point generally look at the market penetration about 14 months earlier. We are currently in the 60s, so another good year of the graph going up rapidly.
I agree, they aren't trying. Which is weird because their phones are cheap comparatively, quite often about $100-200 range totally unsubsidized (and most carriers will do low subsidies on prepaids). There is no reason RIM shouldn't be in the 30-300mb month / high texting space.
1) They had to move Windows in that direction with Windows for Workgroups 2) They had to get NT to have a Windows like interface with Win 3.51. 3) They had to spend a long time with 4 major product lines. 4) They had to spend billions connecting Windows 2000 to Windows ME.
The company I was implementing that for had almost 3000 employees. And most of those advanced features in BES are even better at around 20,000. Fortune 1000 essentially.
OK the feature I'd name is MVS. Being able to anchor cell calls in the PBX (via SIP) allows companies to maintain an "all calls recorded" policy even when the employee is on a cell phone away from the office and the customer is just on the PSTN.
1) RIM didn't sell 2) RIM has features the others don't conclusion) Therefore people don't want those features.
But there are other alternatives like
a) People didn't want them enough to do a complex implementation. b) People didn't really understand how feature rich BES/MVS was. c) People didn't want to build complex infrastructure on top of a vendor specific solution.
BES properly setup is pretty awesome if you need to do complex things. For example assume you have 50 corporate database applications with their own distributed permissions system and you want to make application distribution choices based on those distributed permissions in an automated fashion.
So Employee X is on the road in his car and talking to customer Y's cell phone and that call gets recorded and archived with neither one of them doing anything other than "dialing a number". Try doing that with an iPhone.
Slashdot Mirror
No you can't. You need the X11 client installed to talk the X protocol. You don't need to be running a desktop (X11 server) but you absolutely need X11.
but why would I would to exchange something thats imperfect for something that apart from eye candy potential had very reduced functionality and is clearly broken from a network point of view.
Why would I want to trade in my boat to ride on roads when it works well on rivers? Wayland is not designed for remote applications for those applications there will be a downgrade. If this is a big deal to the applications you use they wont' switch away from X11 and the whole thing won't matter.
Matlab is going to have an X11 version for a very long time. That will still be possible. The only effect is on applications that drop X11 support.
There won't be any impact on applications designed for network transparency they will just stay with X11. Wayland supports X11 apps, X11 won't support Wayland apps.
It will get OpenGL rather quickly, likely long before the mainstream distributions switch. Remember the GUI libraries have to switch and then the GUIs before the distributions would even consider it.
No one has any idea how to make an X11 server reliable enough and secure enough to have access to the kernel on the majority of machines. Further the kernel group has never expressed interest in allowing a change like that. Lets stick to discussing technology we know how to make, otherwise I can discuss my windowing system with built in teleportation to resolve the network transparency need.
For applications that are used remotely they just stay on X11. Wayland will have an X11 the way OSX does now. For applications written for Wayland yeah you likely will need a VNC style solution.
You are absolutely right that stuff could be added to X and compatibility maintained if that were a high priority. And there is no reason the invention of Wayland prevents that from happening. X will be free to mature if there remains an application market that needs network transparency.
Wayland is mainly a step back, in that it discards network transparency but at this point even phones do their own rendering. Server side renders mostly don't seem to matter and for client server the web seems to good enough.
Huh? X11 works fine with OSX. You get a window manager that speaks Aqua so even cut and paste works. Heck if some application wanted to they could even implement a remote drag and drop. You get a access to apps and a reasonable menu. Finally of course you can run a Unix Window manager in full screen mode.
So what exactly is the problem?
VNC is going to work the same way it does with Windows or MacOSX which doesn't involve low level support. VNC is an alternative to Network transparency.
Wayland is actually simpler than X. That being said, I think it will be a very very long time, like a generation minimum, till X.org doesn't have an X for Linux. As far as games Wayland is a pure advantage.
Wayland offers X11 support, Linux post Wayland will be when it switches roughly as interoperable as it is now. The problem will be in the other direction as apps start to migrate to Wayland.
I get where you are going in that handing over the password would be an act of Computer Fraud against Facebook.... that's a stretch but yeah what the heck it might work.
Why would Facebook need separate rules? Facebook isn't any different than email or paper letters.
Let me just take your question. The rules regarding email and the rules regarding paper letters are entirely different. The rules regarding email aren't entirely settled either. But more importantly in both the case of a paper letter and the case of an email there are automatic intended private recipients unless it is sent to a public list. Should facebook be treated like an email sent a public list? Or to take the paper analogy should a facebook post be treated like a published letter or like a private letter?
It's not the medium that matters, but the actions taken. If I blackmail you, it's not much different whether I do it by phone, email, UPS, SMS, or Facebook.
Actually let me just point out even your example is not true. If I do blackmail in person that's a state issue. If I do it by mail or wire that's quite often mail and wire fraud and suddenly becomes a federal crime as well. If I do it by Facebook, it is entirely unclear who has jurisdiction, what state did this take place in?
Judges can't demand a FB password without giving 5th amendment protections after a 5th amendment claim is made. She wasn't subject to a criminal investigation, that wouldn't apply.
Did you actually get a judgement against your company or did the judge simply refuse to dismiss the case. The burdon for dismissing a case is high, the burdon for winning a case is high.
Why it is considerable acceptable is that Facebook is becoming a major factor in social interaction. Events are occurring on Facebook. And we have no body of law of how Facebook interactions are to be treated:
a) Are Facebook posts that are public subject to the same sort of rules as newspaper articles?
b) Are Facebook posts to be treated with the same seriousness as personal letters?
c) Are Facebook posts about work related activities to be considered work related materials and subject to the much broader rules governing work products?
etc...
No one knows the rules.
Funny enough there is a legal term for that "tortious interference". That is the act of encouraging someone to break a contract. She could have raised that position. Of course there is still the standing issue of whether account agreements are actually contracts at all but...
The point of the graph shows that the two markets are still quite competitive. The smartphone market is having to convince dumb phone users to cross over, that is where the customers come from. GP was arguing that dumb phones were already irrelevant.
If you want sales at any given point generally look at the market penetration about 14 months earlier. We are currently in the 60s, so another good year of the graph going up rapidly.
I agree, they aren't trying. Which is weird because their phones are cheap comparatively, quite often about $100-200 range totally unsubsidized (and most carriers will do low subsidies on prepaids). There is no reason RIM shouldn't be in the 30-300mb month / high texting space.
That was my point. But it wasn't that simple.
1) They had to move Windows in that direction with Windows for Workgroups
2) They had to get NT to have a Windows like interface with Win 3.51.
3) They had to spend a long time with 4 major product lines.
4) They had to spend billions connecting Windows 2000 to Windows ME.
The company I was implementing that for had almost 3000 employees. And most of those advanced features in BES are even better at around 20,000. Fortune 1000 essentially.
OK the feature I'd name is MVS. Being able to anchor cell calls in the PBX (via SIP) allows companies to maintain an "all calls recorded" policy even when the employee is on a cell phone away from the office and the customer is just on the PSTN.
You are begging the question here.
1) RIM didn't sell
2) RIM has features the others don't
conclusion) Therefore people don't want those features.
But there are other alternatives like
a) People didn't want them enough to do a complex implementation.
b) People didn't really understand how feature rich BES/MVS was.
c) People didn't want to build complex infrastructure on top of a vendor specific solution.
etc...
BES properly setup is pretty awesome if you need to do complex things. For example assume you have 50 corporate database applications with their own distributed permissions system and you want to make application distribution choices based on those distributed permissions in an automated fashion.
But if you want a simple example: http://us.blackberry.com/business/software/mvs/
I've used this for all calls recorded policies.
So Employee X is on the road in his car and talking to customer Y's cell phone and that call gets recorded and archived with neither one of them doing anything other than "dialing a number". Try doing that with an iPhone.