They got ignored because they called it 4.0. You call it alpha if it is not feature complete. If it was KDE alpha-4.19 it wouldn't have gotten packaged.
Everything is networked but you have smarts on both sides. The X model assumed the client (what X calls the server) was dumb. The model what ended up winning was client / server not network transparent. Run the client app locally and pass the data back and forth.
If all the major distributions have switched and X isn't even a common default then the kludged solutions are working pretty well. Either the solution has panned out or it has been rejected your building a contradictory future. UNIX is rather conservative.
Further Wayland itself can run an X server similar to Aqua Quartz.
Part of the problem was the jump in difficulty. Windows 286/386/3.0 was difficult enough to program that to do anything useful required more than just basic skills. Also BAT worked sorta well as a scripting language there no scripting language for windows.
Basically the difficult shot up suddenly when it came down again with things like visual basic the paradigm had changed. Incidentally its still fairly hard in windows to manipulate hardware.
OK well you are some sort of niche. That's not in any way reflective of what is happening in the wider community even the engineering community. Niches can do all sorts of odd things because of application availability / pricing models.
Me. I'm a mac user and everytime I have to use a windows box I'm shocked how complex the registry is. Settings with no links back to documentation. Ownership of setting completely unclear. What's associated with what versions unclear. No cross linking between user specific and global settings.
Linux has always taken ideas from Windows. It was the first Unix to really go after the Windows crowd, essentially the first Unix community built by people that had grown up in a windows environment. Here is the most popular desktop in 1996: http://xwinman.org/screenshots/fvwm95.gif
I doubt there will be many applications that create two layers. I'd say more in keeping with Linux would be the core applications is written for X and then reskinned using Wayland. Any application for Wayland is likely not going to support X.
And yes that means Ubuntu server will require VNC to be usable for Windows. There won't be any cygwin / network transparency. But that isn't any different than the situation with native Windows applications so I don't see it as very much of a big deal. Network transparency doesn't work well enough at the X level anymore. Rich web interfaces like flash offer the same functionality for most apps that need to operate remotely. Wayland isn't designed to be seamless remote at all so remote administration in a Wayland based system won't be X or Wayland apps but rather web apps.
I'd assume something likes this 1) Wayland is standard on Ubuntu 2) Wayland is standard for most desktop Linuxes as this stage 3) BSD people create an emulation layer in particular a Wayland for FreeBSD and OpenBSD 4) That creates Wayland for Darwin (i.e. its part of Macports) 5) Apple takes this and puts in into the Quartz window manager (i.e. Wayland for Aqua)
I'd day steps 3 to 5 can happen 3-6 yrs after 2.
I'd say around the time 5 is happening other X platforms like QNX start working on the problem. So say something like a decade after step 4 you get a Cygwin port.
Well yeah that's the way upgrades / backward compatibility works. Wayland is acting like X12, you can run X11 apps on Wayland but you can't go backwards.
X's killer feature was network transparency which was wonderful in the days of low security networking. Now that we have higher security its main feature can't be used effectively. We have two and a half decades on windows and mac and their model won for a reason.
Maybe, maybe not. I'm not so sure it is harder now. We are just far more cowardly than we were in the mid 1990s and far less staffed up for change. Heck we got the country moved from DOS to Windows which meant replacing essentially all the hardware. We got the whole world hooked up on local lans, which involved physically touching every computer in the USA.
We scoped it, we did it. What's changed is that:
1) People are much more dependent on the internet. 2) We've lost the manpower we used to have
I'd love to see IPV6 help fix (2).
The internet was undergoing explosive growth in 1995 people were distracted and focused on change that was happening monthly. There really is nothing complex about doing the shift to IPV6 by 1990s standards. You go in you, you tell people how to switch to the new system, you replace the old equipment with the new; configure away any bugs.
Further, the internet is big enough now that the FCC for example could just declare various days that things happen.
Feb 1, 2011 all ISP must provide IPV6 technology or lose their right to use of telecommunications / cable company interconnects for data.
April 1, 2011 All corporations operating in the United with over 50 employees must have a list of all routers and switches not IPV6 capable or lose their right to business class connectivity.
etc.... It really isn't that hard to do as a series of dictates. The US government used to lead on technology shifts. They refused to so under the GW Bush administration but that doesn't mean they couldn't go back to leading like they did under Clinton and HW Bush.
So in 1995 it would have been much easier when getting on the internet was supposed to be hard, and people expected it to be tricky and thus followed instructions. Also far fewer protocols you had to get working all at once. On the other hand you don't have a unified infrastructure. In 1994 I still would have believed that gopher was more important protocol than HTTP as far as information sharing.
Moreover I'm not even sure people would have wanted it. I would have wanted a much more hierarchical internet like we had but were losing. That sort of internet allowed for community, a low security environment. Things like spam, heck advertising didn't exist. I wouldn't have seen enabling commercial activity the way it exists today as a good thing. I probably would have been against the massive proliferation which is the whole point of IPV6. Widespread internet ubiquity destroyed accountability. We still had an open internet in 1995. If I could have looked 5 years in the future I'd see how cool the commercial internet would become and absolutely I'd say that's worth losing the open internet. But in 1995?
Remember the commercial people were online service providers that offered internet as a gimmick on top of their core offerings.
So no, I don't think its harder now. Its more work absolutely but that not the same thing.
NAT doesn't provide security it pretends to. Also it isn't a very good protocol it breaks lots of assumptions about IP and all sorts of apps have workarounds.
graduate students, military, BBS crowd and people in the sciences in the late 80s. That was like maybe.1%. In 1994 it exploded starting to double every 3 mo.
This is further along in the book industry that it is in the music industry. People aren't quite sure they don't need publishers. The book industry is moving rapidly towards the 18th century novels, where novels were self indulgent books written by rich people who could afford to love money rather than the best writers. Democratization is creating a hierarchy where power is divesting to writers and hence writers' economic power is having a substantial influence on what gets published.
Slashdot Mirror
They got ignored because they called it 4.0. You call it alpha if it is not feature complete. If it was KDE alpha-4.19 it wouldn't have gotten packaged.
Everything is networked but you have smarts on both sides. The X model assumed the client (what X calls the server) was dumb. The model what ended up winning was client / server not network transparent. Run the client app locally and pass the data back and forth.
So if you don't like shiny why not just use the UNIX apps that have existed for several decades and work fine? What's the problem?
What apps that need network transparency do you think will be Wayland only? Wayland can run an X server on top so what exactly are you picturing here?
If all the major distributions have switched and X isn't even a common default then the kludged solutions are working pretty well. Either the solution has panned out or it has been rejected your building a contradictory future. UNIX is rather conservative.
Further Wayland itself can run an X server similar to Aqua Quartz.
I used it. DESQVIEW normal was pretty standard among techies. X wasn't nearly as popular.
Part of the problem was the jump in difficulty. Windows 286/386/3.0 was difficult enough to program that to do anything useful required more than just basic skills. Also BAT worked sorta well as a scripting language there no scripting language for windows.
Basically the difficult shot up suddenly when it came down again with things like visual basic the paradigm had changed. Incidentally its still fairly hard in windows to manipulate hardware.
I wish you hadn't cursed so much, but you are absolutely right in your analysis.
OK well you are some sort of niche. That's not in any way reflective of what is happening in the wider community even the engineering community. Niches can do all sorts of odd things because of application availability / pricing models.
Me. I'm a mac user and everytime I have to use a windows box I'm shocked how complex the registry is. Settings with no links back to documentation. Ownership of setting completely unclear. What's associated with what versions unclear. No cross linking between user specific and global settings.
Linux has always taken ideas from Windows. It was the first Unix to really go after the Windows crowd, essentially the first Unix community built by people that had grown up in a windows environment. Here is the most popular desktop in 1996: http://xwinman.org/screenshots/fvwm95.gif
People have been telling me that Windows is the future since 1992. Everywhere I go, I see Windows (and other proprietary OSs) being replaced by Linux.
On the desktop? Linux as a desktop OS in terms of percentages has been relatively flat in terms of usage for the last decade.
I doubt there will be many applications that create two layers. I'd say more in keeping with Linux would be the core applications is written for X and then reskinned using Wayland. Any application for Wayland is likely not going to support X.
And yes that means Ubuntu server will require VNC to be usable for Windows. There won't be any cygwin / network transparency. But that isn't any different than the situation with native Windows applications so I don't see it as very much of a big deal. Network transparency doesn't work well enough at the X level anymore. Rich web interfaces like flash offer the same functionality for most apps that need to operate remotely. Wayland isn't designed to be seamless remote at all so remote administration in a Wayland based system won't be X or Wayland apps but rather web apps.
Lets separate the two.
I'd assume something likes this
1) Wayland is standard on Ubuntu
2) Wayland is standard for most desktop Linuxes
as this stage
3) BSD people create an emulation layer in particular a Wayland for FreeBSD and OpenBSD
4) That creates Wayland for Darwin (i.e. its part of Macports)
5) Apple takes this and puts in into the Quartz window manager (i.e. Wayland for Aqua)
I'd day steps 3 to 5 can happen 3-6 yrs after 2.
I'd say around the time 5 is happening other X platforms like QNX start working on the problem. So say something like a decade after step 4 you get a Cygwin port.
Yes one of the 3 things will happen:
1) Some apps will be graphical and Wayland only while more generic Unixy apps will be X11.
2) Wayland dies out
3) Wayland essentially becomes X12.
Well yeah that's the way upgrades / backward compatibility works. Wayland is acting like X12, you can run X11 apps on Wayland but you can't go backwards.
X's killer feature was network transparency which was wonderful in the days of low security networking. Now that we have higher security its main feature can't be used effectively. We have two and a half decades on windows and mac and their model won for a reason.
No they don't. I had a with Puppy Linux on a Macbook, wouldn't detect the mouse properly.
As for config files the X Server should include an X configuration tool that can work with local hardware, and make adjustments and...
It will lead to fragmentation you'll have:
1) Generic X apps
2) Wayland only apps
3) Apps with an X version and a Wayland version.
Or Wayland becomes super popular, essentially X12, and then only legacy stuff in on X11 and everything is for Wayland. That's forking.
slain lawyers. The lawyers are like the house in poker they always win, regardless of who wins the hand.
Maybe, maybe not. I'm not so sure it is harder now. We are just far more cowardly than we were in the mid 1990s and far less staffed up for change. Heck we got the country moved from DOS to Windows which meant replacing essentially all the hardware. We got the whole world hooked up on local lans, which involved physically touching every computer in the USA.
We scoped it, we did it.
What's changed is that:
1) People are much more dependent on the internet.
2) We've lost the manpower we used to have
I'd love to see IPV6 help fix (2).
The internet was undergoing explosive growth in 1995 people were distracted and focused on change that was happening monthly. There really is nothing complex about doing the shift to IPV6 by 1990s standards. You go in you, you tell people how to switch to the new system, you replace the old equipment with the new; configure away any bugs.
Further, the internet is big enough now that the FCC for example could just declare various days that things happen.
Feb 1, 2011 all ISP must provide IPV6 technology or lose their right to use of telecommunications / cable company interconnects for data.
April 1, 2011 All corporations operating in the United with over 50 employees must have a list of all routers and switches not IPV6 capable or lose their right to business class connectivity.
etc.... It really isn't that hard to do as a series of dictates. The US government used to lead on technology shifts. They refused to so under the GW Bush administration but that doesn't mean they couldn't go back to leading like they did under Clinton and HW Bush.
So in 1995 it would have been much easier when getting on the internet was supposed to be hard, and people expected it to be tricky and thus followed instructions. Also far fewer protocols you had to get working all at once. On the other hand you don't have a unified infrastructure. In 1994 I still would have believed that gopher was more important protocol than HTTP as far as information sharing.
Moreover I'm not even sure people would have wanted it. I would have wanted a much more hierarchical internet like we had but were losing. That sort of internet allowed for community, a low security environment. Things like spam, heck advertising didn't exist. I wouldn't have seen enabling commercial activity the way it exists today as a good thing. I probably would have been against the massive proliferation which is the whole point of IPV6. Widespread internet ubiquity destroyed accountability. We still had an open internet in 1995. If I could have looked 5 years in the future I'd see how cool the commercial internet would become and absolutely I'd say that's worth losing the open internet. But in 1995?
Remember the commercial people were online service providers that offered internet as a gimmick on top of their core offerings.
So no, I don't think its harder now. Its more work absolutely but that not the same thing.
NAT doesn't provide security it pretends to.
Also it isn't a very good protocol it breaks lots of assumptions about IP and all sorts of apps have workarounds.
Ditching NAT is not a bad thing.
Yep. But 15 years ago we were just trying to get the vast bulk of the US on the internet at all. There were other focuses.
It wasn't 10% of people for very long. It was
graduate students, military, BBS crowd and people in the sciences in the late 80s. That was like maybe .1%. In 1994 it exploded starting to double every 3 mo.
This is further along in the book industry that it is in the music industry. People aren't quite sure they don't need publishers. The book industry is moving rapidly towards the 18th century novels, where novels were self indulgent books written by rich people who could afford to love money rather than the best writers. Democratization is creating a hierarchy where power is divesting to writers and hence writers' economic power is having a substantial influence on what gets published.