Is Wayland network transparent / does it support remote rendering?
No / yes respectively. Network transparency is a specific mechanism for remote rendering that works well on LANs and doesn't work well locally or over WAN. Wayland does not use network transparency. What most people mean by "network transparency" though is not "does it use mechanism X" but rather "can I run applications remotely in a way that is comfortable". And the answer is the RDP is more comfortable.
In any case they have no gone beyond "someone could do an RDP" like it was 4 years ago to there are multiple RDP's available and FreeRDP is good enough that they are bundling it in by default.
So customer that buys a brand new Air should just be happy that they get a bad experience for the next three years?
I doubt they actually will get a bad experience. I think the whole argument about fonts is nonsense. And even if it were it would be a slightly worse experience. That being said. But assuming it were true... this is what I went through when I bought a retina macbookpro day one. There was a rough transition. I had to hack Word's internal settings to make Word usable. Firefox was unusable for close to a year.
Defaults have to be aimed at low or the high. Apple has consistently pushed standards by aiming at the high. That's one of the things that Apple customers buy. They buy a world where hardware progress is forced by the OS which allows for more rapid progress. Those Air customers are getting insane battery that would be impossible on Windows because Apple was forcing application designers to focus on energy efficiency (coalescing) during periods when most people's machines didn't support it.
I am sure that someone will make a utility to change the default font on the Mac if it is not already available in settings.
You are making a good point. I wish you would get an account.
And absolutely you are correct. Systemd is taking functions that were part of the PaaS and driving them into individual nodes which means the PaaS needs to be redesigned for systemd. The PaaS people all think this is a plus, the lower level hooks are an advantage.
Projects that want to work flawlessly on both xBSD, solaris, and Linux
That's a pretty obscure use case a cross platform daemon, running in a cluster (i.e. not virtualized hardware), that can't just use a low level daemon for Linux / systemd support. I'm going to assume systembsd or something similar is going to exist for BSD long term, but right now it does. So yes short term those projects get hurt by systemd. Either they are going to only work on obscure distributions or the are going to have to do some engineering. They are an obscure corner case that is going to get hit, but even then it doesn't sound too bad for them.
The benefits of the small lean pid 1 system that have been the norm for unix like system. are that they allow for a lot more local customization then a huge monolithic pid 1
I'm not sure that's quite true. It certainly isn't true for Digital Unix, HPUX, AIX. It was true for IRIX, SunOS.Solaris is a middle case on big hardware it wasn't true as well. It isn't true for OSX either on which systemd is based. But it certainly was true for Linux. And yes it is likely that as systemd becomes the norm people who want to customize are going to have to use more specialized distributions and lose access. OTOH systemd is very configurable so there isn't much reason to just not run the functionality of a component via configuration. The argument is not that systemd has 0 disadvantages but rather that on the whole the advantages so far outweigh the disadvantages that it was safe to just standardize.
Linux does have a healthy distribution ecosystem that allows for non-standard choices.
First off I doubt your figures of 90%. Apple's sales are not as biased towards the low end (which btw applies for other companies as well). For example their best selling model of laptop for many years is the 13" macbook pro not the much cheaper macbooks. Second no, the one iMac base model is the only one that is new. New was the qualifier.
As for the argument in your other post I presented the DPIs. The model you said had the best DPI has the worst DPI of all Apple's retina screens and all of them are within a few percentage points.
Right now as a country we don't want to fund what a fair trial system would cost. We need structural reforms. I'm not sure what percentage of people who end up pleading weren't criminals, but it is somewhere north of 0%.
All that being said though, this group of people are the people who can afford a lawyer. The point was what was the advantage of long sentences for the prosecutor i.e. what it means in practice.
I don't know the UK system. But if this were the USA the issue might be this: "I don't want a harassment conviction on my record. Worst case is 6 mo which means I likely get 4 mo, so no jail time. I'm going to trial". But with "2 years = felony. The DA is letting me plead to a misdemeanor with no jail time. I'm taking the plea".
A very good presenter, insightful and fun to watch. A bit self contradictory in her theories but she's still working through the details of her theories, I suspect. Essentially a great candidate for a pundit for G4TV.
I'm not very comfortable with laws that require some form of human interpretation as guilt comes down entirely to the human doing the interpreting and at that point you have to hope they don't have an ax to grind or some other reason for disliking you.
Virtually all law in the UK or USA requires the jury to make determinations of guilt based on their interpretations of actions. You are objecting to crucial concepts in our system. Most crucially criminal intent being required not just a findings that acts took place.
In other words: screw all of the legacy users where legacy means last years model.
No. In other words continue the progression in an orderly fashion towards the new standard. That retina is the upcoming standard has been clear for years.
This is the problem with Apple's idea of "forward thinking". They don't just offer a new new features, they prevent you from using the old ones.
Well this isn't an example of that, but that's true. Apple wants their ecosystem unified and legacy harms a unified ecosystem.
I said "the new iMac" the others have been out. The DPI on the Macbookpro is 227/220 which is higher than 218. As for the Pro that can easily run Retina the screen is external.
SMB support is there it is fully integrated as a filesystem. smb://ServerName/ShareName in finder and you connect. ipfw to PF was an upgrade stateless to stateful.
Or you could list some of their failures (e.g. firewire, lightning thus far, SCSI on the desktop, PowerPC which they abandoned for Intel) to make them seem like bumbling idiots. Apple isn't a prognosticator. They're making guesses about the future just like everyone else. For some reason people are less likely to remember their failures than with other companies
Because often those "failures" are pretty good. SCSI on the desktop was expensive but it was much much faster and more reliable than the cheap drives in PCs at the time. It was a noticeable quality bump. In the end customers preferred more space for less money but Apple customers weren't exactly suffering. Firewire was terrific for years when USB was deadly slow. I still use a lot of external firewire. Lightning we'll have to see. So far it isn't promising though I like that I can run ethernet through lightening quite well.
PowerPC frankly they handled as bad as possible they suffered for years when Intel overtook them and when IBM finally released the G5s they only did a few models and then switched. Power chips are much better than Intel chips today, I wish they were still on Power.
The new iMac and the Macbook pro both ship with retina. The MacPro is designed for video. The only product that doesn't support retina that reasonably could is the macbook air and that's likely to change in a year.
As a user I want my remote display. I've been to the Wayland website. I've read the FAQ. I don't see ANYTHING that gives me the idea that I will be able to keep using remote login sessions when Wayland has replaced X.
Well I think you should take that to David Fort. Kristian Høgsberg made him responsible (in May) for integrating an RDP solution directly into the system: http://lists.freedesktop.org/a...
No. Right now the RDP level stuff has about a 1/2 dozen competing solutions and they are being played around with at the distribution integrator / developer level. They aren't designed for end users yet. As far as Wayland is concerned it has been implemented but the best solution(s) haven't been agreed to yet nor are they clear candidates we are still in the experimenting stage.
Who cares? That seems to be all that Wayland supporters can talk about.. how things should work internally. Users don't care!
Well if you look above the question was about developers not users. But sure I'll handle the users issues.
Will I be able to do what I do now when my favorite distro switches to Wayland?
Yes. Wayland already runs X11.
Will I be able to do what I do now when my favorite apps stop supporting X? Will I be able to do what I do now when new apps come out that I want to use and have no legacy support for X?
Nope (assuming what I do now is about remote use). You'll have better in most cases, but not the same.
Can I just get ahead of the curve and do it using Wayland now?
Yes if you want. Very few applications use Wayland at this point and most distributions aren't using Wayland. It is still a pretty uncomfortable experience for use. Fedora 20 got parts of Gnome to run at all under Wayland but they mostly suck. Fedora 21 they are working on getting it smoother.
All the references to remote Wayland I've seen have been about using something like RDP which was built on top of Wayland.
Correct. The graphical widgets are also on top of Wayland. For the application developer though that's all part of their graphical widgets they mostly won't care what layer it happens at.
The results are rather less than what one expects after having had remote-X available for a long time (remote-X looks exactly like local, no lossy compression, multiple programs can tunnel X).
RDP is far better than network transparency in that RDP is network aware and adjust to the network while transparency doesn't. Why wouldn't you want the system to adjust to take advantage or limit itself based on what the network can accomplish?
If you look at the design of the A7 it has a lot of capabilities that iOS isn't using. I wouldn't be shocked if around 5 years from now it isn't OSX running in a compatibility mode with a few OSX applications running under emulation and/or being recompiled.
a) Not supporting POSIX in 2014 b) Not supporting the concept of interoperability.
You talk about it a little with "POSIX can catch up". But that's really the core. POSIX as it exists today came out of the late 1980s+ open systems movement as a way to tie together a bunch of proprietary Unixes which mostly are dead. It doesn't really help on porting software today, Windows has POSIX but it isn't easy for Windows software to move back and forth. IBM is really the only player left from the original group and even they support Linux leading AIX.
Obviously there are going to be needs for diverse operating systems today and going forward. OSX is the dominant desktop Unix. Windows is a huge player even in server. zSeries continues to exist and thrive. It is important to figure out how to get software to cross between these systems. POSIX doesn't really help with that problem today. The group that is really focused on working through the issues of getting software to run cross platform is the Azure group at Microsoft and I don't see the sysinit crowd contributing to that effort. What evidence is there that we are talking about interoperability and not just resistance to change. Thursday I was at the meeting where interoperability for large databases came up, no one even mentioned POSIX because POSIX doesn't say anything remotely relevant about running large databases between systems.
a) I don't like complex binaries even though I run the Linux kernel crowd. b) There are the people who claim to be interested in server but don't seem to know anything about server. So when you try and discuss issues like the mechanics like setting up security contexts and Linux control groups (cgroups) for processes having to be done manually or the complexities process management they don't have answers. c) There are the people who don't like change and talk about "the Unix way" even though most of them don't seem to have done much Unix other than Linux.
I have yet to hear the sysinit come forward with real solutions to the limitations of init. OpenRC was an attempt and if they wanted to provide a solution building on that would make sense.
No they made it hook into things it should and replace other outdated systems. The dependencies exist because upstream developers wanted the advanced feature set that init didn't provide. And now that it exists upstream software is starting to evolve in ways that deeply take advantage of those advanced features being readily available making it harder and harder to work around them.
Slashdot Mirror
No / yes respectively. Network transparency is a specific mechanism for remote rendering that works well on LANs and doesn't work well locally or over WAN. Wayland does not use network transparency. What most people mean by "network transparency" though is not "does it use mechanism X" but rather "can I run applications remotely in a way that is comfortable". And the answer is the RDP is more comfortable.
In any case they have no gone beyond "someone could do an RDP" like it was 4 years ago to there are multiple RDP's available and FreeRDP is good enough that they are bundling it in by default.
I doubt they actually will get a bad experience. I think the whole argument about fonts is nonsense. And even if it were it would be a slightly worse experience. That being said. But assuming it were true... this is what I went through when I bought a retina macbookpro day one. There was a rough transition. I had to hack Word's internal settings to make Word usable. Firefox was unusable for close to a year.
Defaults have to be aimed at low or the high. Apple has consistently pushed standards by aiming at the high. That's one of the things that Apple customers buy. They buy a world where hardware progress is forced by the OS which allows for more rapid progress. Those Air customers are getting insane battery that would be impossible on Windows because Apple was forcing application designers to focus on energy efficiency (coalescing) during periods when most people's machines didn't support it.
It is. You can change that stuff easily.
You are making a good point. I wish you would get an account.
And absolutely you are correct. Systemd is taking functions that were part of the PaaS and driving them into individual nodes which means the PaaS needs to be redesigned for systemd. The PaaS people all think this is a plus, the lower level hooks are an advantage.
That's a pretty obscure use case a cross platform daemon, running in a cluster (i.e. not virtualized hardware), that can't just use a low level daemon for Linux / systemd support. I'm going to assume systembsd or something similar is going to exist for BSD long term, but right now it does. So yes short term those projects get hurt by systemd. Either they are going to only work on obscure distributions or the are going to have to do some engineering. They are an obscure corner case that is going to get hit, but even then it doesn't sound too bad for them.
I'm not sure that's quite true. It certainly isn't true for Digital Unix, HPUX, AIX. It was true for IRIX, SunOS.Solaris is a middle case on big hardware it wasn't true as well. It isn't true for OSX either on which systemd is based. But it certainly was true for Linux. And yes it is likely that as systemd becomes the norm people who want to customize are going to have to use more specialized distributions and lose access. OTOH systemd is very configurable so there isn't much reason to just not run the functionality of a component via configuration. The argument is not that systemd has 0 disadvantages but rather that on the whole the advantages so far outweigh the disadvantages that it was safe to just standardize.
Linux does have a healthy distribution ecosystem that allows for non-standard choices.
Yep.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
First off I doubt your figures of 90%. Apple's sales are not as biased towards the low end (which btw applies for other companies as well). For example their best selling model of laptop for many years is the 13" macbook pro not the much cheaper macbooks. Second no, the one iMac base model is the only one that is new. New was the qualifier.
As for the argument in your other post I presented the DPIs. The model you said had the best DPI has the worst DPI of all Apple's retina screens and all of them are within a few percentage points.
Right now as a country we don't want to fund what a fair trial system would cost. We need structural reforms. I'm not sure what percentage of people who end up pleading weren't criminals, but it is somewhere north of 0%.
All that being said though, this group of people are the people who can afford a lawyer. The point was what was the advantage of long sentences for the prosecutor i.e. what it means in practice.
I don't know the UK system. But if this were the USA the issue might be this: "I don't want a harassment conviction on my record. Worst case is 6 mo which means I likely get 4 mo, so no jail time. I'm going to trial". But with "2 years = felony. The DA is letting me plead to a misdemeanor with no jail time. I'm taking the plea".
A very good presenter, insightful and fun to watch. A bit self contradictory in her theories but she's still working through the details of her theories, I suspect. Essentially a great candidate for a pundit for G4TV.
Virtually all law in the UK or USA requires the jury to make determinations of guilt based on their interpretations of actions. You are objecting to crucial concepts in our system. Most crucially criminal intent being required not just a findings that acts took place.
The CFAA mostly wouldn't apply. Though I imagine things like terroristic threats are a penalty in the USA and would allow for potential extradition.
The full Samba3 is still available on Macports.
No. In other words continue the progression in an orderly fashion towards the new standard. That retina is the upcoming standard has been clear for years.
Well this isn't an example of that, but that's true. Apple wants their ecosystem unified and legacy harms a unified ecosystem.
I said "the new iMac" the others have been out. The DPI on the Macbookpro is 227/220 which is higher than 218. As for the Pro that can easily run Retina the screen is external.
SMB support is there it is fully integrated as a filesystem. smb://ServerName/ShareName in finder and you connect. ipfw to PF was an upgrade stateless to stateful.
Because often those "failures" are pretty good. SCSI on the desktop was expensive but it was much much faster and more reliable than the cheap drives in PCs at the time. It was a noticeable quality bump. In the end customers preferred more space for less money but Apple customers weren't exactly suffering. Firewire was terrific for years when USB was deadly slow. I still use a lot of external firewire. Lightning we'll have to see. So far it isn't promising though I like that I can run ethernet through lightening quite well.
PowerPC frankly they handled as bad as possible they suffered for years when Intel overtook them and when IBM finally released the G5s they only did a few models and then switched. Power chips are much better than Intel chips today, I wish they were still on Power.
The new iMac and the Macbook pro both ship with retina. The MacPro is designed for video. The only product that doesn't support retina that reasonably could is the macbook air and that's likely to change in a year.
Well I think you should take that to David Fort. Kristian Høgsberg made him responsible (in May) for integrating an RDP solution directly into the system: http://lists.freedesktop.org/a...
No. Right now the RDP level stuff has about a 1/2 dozen competing solutions and they are being played around with at the distribution integrator / developer level. They aren't designed for end users yet. As far as Wayland is concerned it has been implemented but the best solution(s) haven't been agreed to yet nor are they clear candidates we are still in the experimenting stage.
Well if you look above the question was about developers not users. But sure I'll handle the users issues.
Yes. Wayland already runs X11.
Nope (assuming what I do now is about remote use). You'll have better in most cases, but not the same.
Yes if you want. Very few applications use Wayland at this point and most distributions aren't using Wayland. It is still a pretty uncomfortable experience for use. Fedora 20 got parts of Gnome to run at all under Wayland but they mostly suck. Fedora 21 they are working on getting it smoother.
Of course it has access CPU -> bus -> card -> card RAM vs. X11's CPU -> RAM -> RAM (not a typo) -> CPU -> bus -> card -> card RAM.
Correct. The graphical widgets are also on top of Wayland. For the application developer though that's all part of their graphical widgets they mostly won't care what layer it happens at.
RDP is far better than network transparency in that RDP is network aware and adjust to the network while transparency doesn't. Why wouldn't you want the system to adjust to take advantage or limit itself based on what the network can accomplish?
If you look at the design of the A7 it has a lot of capabilities that iOS isn't using. I wouldn't be shocked if around 5 years from now it isn't OSX running in a compatibility mode with a few OSX applications running under emulation and/or being recompiled.
I think you are conflating two distinct things:
a) Not supporting POSIX in 2014
b) Not supporting the concept of interoperability.
You talk about it a little with "POSIX can catch up". But that's really the core. POSIX as it exists today came out of the late 1980s+ open systems movement as a way to tie together a bunch of proprietary Unixes which mostly are dead. It doesn't really help on porting software today, Windows has POSIX but it isn't easy for Windows software to move back and forth. IBM is really the only player left from the original group and even they support Linux leading AIX.
Obviously there are going to be needs for diverse operating systems today and going forward. OSX is the dominant desktop Unix. Windows is a huge player even in server. zSeries continues to exist and thrive. It is important to figure out how to get software to cross between these systems. POSIX doesn't really help with that problem today. The group that is really focused on working through the issues of getting software to run cross platform is the Azure group at Microsoft and I don't see the sysinit crowd contributing to that effort. What evidence is there that we are talking about interoperability and not just resistance to change. Thursday I was at the meeting where interoperability for large databases came up, no one even mentioned POSIX because POSIX doesn't say anything remotely relevant about running large databases between systems.
Not really. There is the:
a) I don't like complex binaries even though I run the Linux kernel crowd.
b) There are the people who claim to be interested in server but don't seem to know anything about server. So when you try and discuss issues like the mechanics like setting up security contexts and Linux control groups (cgroups) for processes having to be done manually or the complexities process management they don't have answers.
c) There are the people who don't like change and talk about "the Unix way" even though most of them don't seem to have done much Unix other than Linux.
I have yet to hear the sysinit come forward with real solutions to the limitations of init. OpenRC was an attempt and if they wanted to provide a solution building on that would make sense.
No they made it hook into things it should and replace other outdated systems. The dependencies exist because upstream developers wanted the advanced feature set that init didn't provide. And now that it exists upstream software is starting to evolve in ways that deeply take advantage of those advanced features being readily available making it harder and harder to work around them.