My favourite example is the article about researchgate. This company has spammed every scientist on this planet hundred times. But for a long time this very well known and obvious fact could not be mentioned in the wikipedia article because there was no secondary source... on the other hand, every questionable statement put out by researchgate in a press release about themselves was immediately copied into some article by a lazy journalist and so became reliable knowledge. It didn't help that they had paid editors helping keep their article clean from criticism.
Well, it is an issue and there is no magic answer. It is just not that big of an issue as the opponents of wind and solar seem to believe. And there are many partial solutions which can be combined. First, solar fits well to the demand curve, so it usually does not have to be stored in the first place. Also wind and solar often complement each other well. This is the reason pumped-storage is currently underutilized in Germany despite a having a huge share of renewables. Then you can have a large enough grid to average production in space - then you do not need to average as much in time (i.e. store). To make it larger, you can trade electricity with your neighbours. You can also have reserve power plants for times where production is low. In fact, you need to have them anyway - even with nuclear power, because a nuclear power plant might just drop out for some technical reason any time.
But what's "an auth model that works"? The PGP web of trust isn't it because trust isn't transitive. Just because I can vouch for someone's identity doesn't mean I can vouch for her ability to vouch for others' identities. That's why X.509 certificates have the "cannot act as a CA" flag.
In most cases, nobody needs to know the identity anyway. It would be far more important to know that it is the same website I looked at before which can be trivially achieved by storing a hash to a certificate locally after the first visit. It would also be important to know whether the destination of a link is still the intended one which could be achieved very easily with link fingerprints.
This is nice strawman. You make up a nice story how the academics will misuse money from unrelated grants to pay for this and then argue that this is unethical. But of course, there are many other legitimate ways to fund this project and there is no indication whatsoever that this specific project will get funded in a questionable way. And no, where I have worked I have never seen how money from grants has been spent for entirely unrelated projects - and I seriously doubt that any supercomputer has been paid for from misappropriated grant money. When I order something from the grants I have, an admin makes sure that this is actually covered by the original grant application. Even if the admin would let it slip through, there are internal audits which would catch this.
Well, the important point is that you learn some generic stuff (shell scripting) and then one can apply this knowledge in many different places. So I just learned a bit of scripting in the past and was able to change my init scripts when I needed to. In the future I will have to look stuff up every time I need to change something - not cool.
You don't get to assume spherical cows in a vacuum on this one.
One interesting study of radiologists showed they actually fared a bit better than people without that small extra dose of radiation.
You can find "interesting studies" showing that homeopathy work etc... I work with MDs who expose themselves to radiation to help others. I have also worked in a radiotherapy lab in the past. I am not scared of radiation. But I know most of the related literature and the overwhelming consensus is that radiation is harmful at any dose. The idea that LNT is obsolete is a fringe position in the scientific community which almost nobody even takes seriously.
Meanwhile, a rate limited repair mechanism would imply a threshold point where the harm goes way up once above it, or if you prefer, it goes down on the low side.
This is true, but this is a highly contrived scenario. Why would a repair mechanism be rate-limited at such low doses? This is not plausible at all. A repair mechanism might get overwhelmed at high dose, but we talk about extremely lose dose. Think about it a bit more: A rate-limited repair mechanism at extremely low dose would imply that a cell hit by ionizing radiaton somehow decides not to repair a double-strand break because slightly more other cells have been hit than usual and the (body-wide?) repair limit has been reached. Why would something like this evolve? How would the body keep track of this limit? How would an individual cell even know?
Even the simplest model where there is a minimum stimulation to activate the repair mechanism which has a limited capacity would result in three different regions in a graph of exposure vs. risk. That doesn't sound at all linear to me, how about you?
This is not the simplest model. The simplest model is that there is no extra stimulation of repair mechanism at such tiny additional doses and repair is just the regular repair mechanisms (which are already very good). This is the simplest model and directly leads to LNT. Again, it is also the most plausible: Why should there be a additional repair mechanisms already at such tiny additional dose? But even the idea that extra repair is stimulated at low dose means that LNT underestimates dose, only if you assume that repair gets overwhelmed already at very small additional dose leads to the idea that LNT could overestimate dose... Again, it is not plausible at all that a tiny additional dose already overwhelms our repair mechanisms.
As for whether LNT over or under estimates the risk, that would depend on what parts of the complex curve the statistical samples came from.
Exactly, but while it is theoretically possible that non-linear effects exist, there is - so far - no clear evidence for such non-linear effect at extremely low dose. So the simplest theory which has to be preferred by Occam's razor is the linear one. And at moderate dose we know that the effect linear.
I am not entirely sure what your point is . The first number seems to be a prediction for a large group of affected people and the second the number of cases in a specific subgroup of people, so it does not contradict the first. In fact, the conclusion from the latter study is "We found a significant linear dose response for all leukemia".
Since we know our cells have some ability to repair radiation damage but that it is rate limited, LNT would actually be an astonishing result.
You seem to believe this. As a physicist, I disagree. Even from very basic arguments it is clear that LNT is natural assumption. The effect is either purely statistical (each hit from ionizing radiation carries a very small independent risk that it is not repaired properly and causes cancer) : Then it must be linear. Or there is some kind of feedback mechanism, i.e. bit more radiation stimulates additional repair. Then it is also approximately linear for very small changes in radiation but maybe indeed be non-linear for slightly higher changes in radiation. The problem with this is: 1. We do not have any clear evidence for this. 2. It would imply that LNT _underestimates_ the risk because repair is not as good for lower doses (where repair is not stimulated) and linearly extrapolating from high doses to low doses therefor underestimates the risk. A non-linear effect which would cause the linear prediction to overestimate the risk would be if the repair mechanisms get overwhelmed at some point, but is absurd to assume that this is the case at such low dose (as many point out, we adapted to some level of radiation).
Again, that you think that googling for confirmation is a meaningful contribution in a scientific discussion just shows how detached you are from reality.
The error bars are big enough to cover any conclusion you'd care to make.
Well, effects are small, but it is another study where the data is an agreement with LNT and provides no evidence for any non-linear effect. We also have large scale studies for exposure from CT with similar conclusions. At higher dose, we have the data from atomic bomb survivors which indicates a linear relationship. Finally, we have good understanding about how ionizing radiation causes cancer and this implies a linear relationship even at low dose, and there is not any convincing explanation or evidence for a non-linear effect at such low doses.
Even the summary table shows U.S. workers with more cancer but lass radiation dose than U.K. workers.
That is a meaningless comment. There can be many reasons why there are a different numbers of cancers for U.K. and U.S unrelated to radiation.
Well, it is the low dose regime, where the effect is believed to be essentially statistical which means that it must be linear (the risk from individual double strand breaks to get cancer accumulates). Of course you can speculate that there is a non-statistical effect because some kind of response mechanism is triggered by radiation which goes beyond simple repair mechanisms which are always active. Such mechanisms exist but there is not much evidence that they play a role at very low doses. It is also obvious that the most natural assumptions about those mechanisms would imply that LNT _underestimates_ the cancer risk at low doses, because additional repair stimulated by radiation would reduce risk with higher dose.
Finally, it is not much me who believes that LNT is still our best guess. It is the scientific consensus, which you can easily confirm by doing a proper literature search. Ofcourse, if you just google you will find a lot of website stating the opposite.
This is misleading on multiple levels. Germany does not import a huge amount of energy from France. Germany is a net-exporter of energy and has easily enough power generation capacity to sustain itself. It imports from France only at certain times when France has to get rid of its surplus and it is simply cheaper to buy from France than to produce it from coal or gas. The feed-in tariff for renewables certainly increases electricity prices in Germany, but it is only a small part of the total price, so not the sole reason why electricity is more expensive in Germany. Germany also has a very stable grid which costs money to maintain (and I lived in Germany and the US - I know how crappy the grid in the US is in comparison). Also it has to be said that a lot of money was sunk into nuclear energy in the past, but this was paid from general taxes, so not visible in the electricity price. The same could have been done for renewables, but it was an intentional decision to have consumers pay for it directly to promote conservation (which is working by the way: Germany is reducing consumption by a few percent every year).
You can make very good arguments to why one should not freak out about radiation even from accidents such as Fukushima. But please, dear nuclear fanboys, don't base it on non-mainstream scientific positions (to put it nicely) such as "LNT is wrong". This only makes you look stupid.
The LINEAR part is wrong because intracellular coping mechanisms(DNA repair, mopping up reactive oxygen species(which is one of the damage modes of ionizing radiation)) have a range in which they function optimally. Asssuming a fully linear relationship there could no repair or maintenance done at all which is a ridiculous suggestion.
Why do you think this? A linear relationship at low doses is fully consistent with repair. You are reading the wrong websites.
The NO THRESHOLD part doesn't hold up either as there's no detectable cancer rate curve among radiation worker that correlates to their doses inside the allowed intervals.
Radiation workers receive a very low dose, so obviously the minimal excess risk is hard to detect. But this does not imply it doesn't exist. But funny: There just appeared a large scale study which claims to show this effect: http://www.bmj.com/content/351...
If we compare a radiation worker that only does administrative work and accumulates 1mSv to one that works in a hotlab and accumulates 16mSv we should see a 16 times increase in radiation related cancer according to the LNT, but that's not what we see in the real world.
There is a huge risk to get cancer anyway. What is 16 times bigger is the additional excess risk which is extremely small even if it is 16 times bigger.
I don't get quite get what you man by simple backtracking problem....
The math gets much nicer if you look at GHZ states with three particles. I am not sure if this is accessible to experiments yet, but the interesting effect becomes very clear..
Only if you subscribe to the linear no-threshold model which we know is wrong.
Other in the fairy-tale world of slashdot's nuclear fanboys, we know nothing like that. In fact, we have a lot of confirming evidence that the LNT holds to very small doses.
We live on a planet bathed in radiation and our biology has evolved to deal with this.
This is a fallacy. That we adapted to radiation doesn't mean that radiation is good for us.
the problem is we don't have a better model to use for policy recommendations but don't confuse that with reality.
The problem is people having opinions about science without being able to read the relevant scientific literature.
The crucial piece you are missing is that the results depend on the type of measurement Bob and Alice perform. If you want to simulate this on a classical computer, to get the correct statistics you need the information of the type of measurement performed on the other side. In other words, if you instead of entangled particles send two classical computers to alice and bob which should simulate results with correct statistics, those computers need to communicate to achieve this.
But the publishers do not decide what's worth to see. The editors and reviewers do this job. So no, the publishers do not contribute much and we (scientists) are indeed in the progress in cutting them out. The reason why it takes so long is simply momentum: The journals with high reputation get to pick the good submissions because it is important for (especially young) scientists to publish in journals with high reputation. The journals with high reputation are most of the time old journals which are published by evil publishers which try to sell access for insane fees to university libraries (which cannot afford to drop subscriptions to high reputation journals). But things are changing...
I disagree. Wayland is essentially a subset of what X11 can do. It is based on sending messages over a unix domain socket and sharing buffers. This is exactly what modern X clients also do. This is no surprise: It was designed to support exactly what is needed for modern clients and no more with the explicit goal to get rid of everything else. But it does not add anything which you cannot also do in basically the same way with X.
Trying to say that just because it uses sockets makes it like X11 doesn't make it so.
This is not what I said. I said Wayland is similar by design to a subset of X because it is designed that way. Domain sockets and sharing buffers matters because those things essentially determine the performance.
This is true. This is about retaining backwards compatibility.
Right... so we must maintain backwards compatibility for barely used functionality even when it impacts on performance in the every day use case. And even when you can have backwards compatibility by running Xwayland or by running X11 without Wayland while everyone else enjoys a better experience.
Unsubstantiated claims: 1. It does impact performance in every day use case. 2. people will enjoy a better experience.
Xwayland will certainly not be everywhere (it already isn't), breaking compatibility in practice. Also Xwayland is only one direction of compatibility. Wayland clients will not work with X. And yes, I think maintaining compatibility is important.
Extensions are nice way to make modern rendering possible without breaking backwards possibility. "fool" "2D-centric" "1980" is just FUD to make it sound bad, but X supports modern applications just fine. You have no technical argument.
It's not FUD, it's true. X11 is from an age where the screen screen was a bitmap and every window to be a region in that bitmap.
How is it relevant from what age X11 is? It isn't. X has a very open and flexible design and has been extended many times to adapt it to new use cases without breaking compatibility. That things were done differently originally does not matter as long as you can do it differently today.
When you moved one window over another the server would throw out damage events and every client would repaint their areas. And x, y coordinates for mouse moves were simple transforms from screen to window coords.
This model is totally discordant with a modern compositing desktop.
And yet, X supports a modern compositing desktop just fine.
X11 has gained a compositor extension which is hacked into this model but underneath it still thinks the same way. So the compositor must duplicate state from X11 except sometimes windows might be scaling or otherwise not where X11 thinks they are. So all the x, y mouse coords are screwed up and don't map properly.
For some reason, it works just fine in practice.
Oh and because the compositor is a separate process it means extra context switches in and out of the damage event so the server can preserve its worldview. In Wayland the compositor, server and window manager are the same process. So the state isn't duplicated or mismatched and compositing does not require a context switch.
You could merge all that stuff into a single process without changing the protocol on wire. Not that I think it would make any noticeable difference. But if it matters form some gamer who wants to play a game in a rotating and wobbling window or something, this could certainly be done... But I would like to see benchmarks first.
Because modern clients work essentially in the same way on X as on Wayland, nothing is slower or less efficient. Just because some API is based on an extension or not doesn't make it faster or slower. This is
Slashdot Mirror
Actual data for Germany can be found here:
https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/...
See the "Recent facts.." document (page 61, figure 52).
My favourite example is the article about researchgate. This company has spammed every scientist on this planet hundred times. But for a long time this very well known and obvious fact could not be mentioned in the wikipedia article because there was no secondary source... on the other hand, every questionable statement put out by researchgate in a press release about themselves was immediately copied into some article by a lazy journalist and so became reliable knowledge. It didn't help that they had paid editors helping keep their article clean from criticism.
Well, it is an issue and there is no magic answer. It is just not that big of an issue as the opponents of wind and solar seem to believe. And there are many partial solutions which can be combined. First, solar fits well to the demand curve, so it usually does not have to be stored in the first place. Also wind and solar often complement each other well. This is the reason pumped-storage is currently underutilized in Germany despite a having a huge share of renewables. Then you can have a large enough grid to average production in space - then you do not need to average as much in time (i.e. store). To make it larger, you can trade electricity with your neighbours. You can also have reserve power plants for times where production is low. In fact, you need to have them anyway - even with nuclear power, because a nuclear power plant might just drop out for some technical reason any time.
But what's "an auth model that works"? The PGP web of trust isn't it because trust isn't transitive. Just because I can vouch for someone's identity doesn't mean I can vouch for her ability to vouch for others' identities. That's why X.509 certificates have the "cannot act as a CA" flag.
In most cases, nobody needs to know the identity anyway. It would be far more important to know that it is the same website I looked at before which can be trivially achieved by storing a hash to a certificate locally after the first visit. It would also be important to know whether the destination of a link is still the intended one which could be achieved very easily with link fingerprints.
This is nice strawman. You make up a nice story how the academics will misuse money from unrelated grants to pay for this and then argue that this is unethical. But of course, there are many other legitimate ways to fund this project and there is no indication whatsoever that this specific project will get funded in a questionable way. And no, where I have worked I have never seen how money from grants has been spent for entirely unrelated projects - and I seriously doubt that any supercomputer has been paid for from misappropriated grant money. When I order something from the grants I have, an admin makes sure that this is actually covered by the original grant application. Even if the admin would let it slip through, there are internal audits which would catch this.
Editors are usually professor employed by some university who do this work for free or some small compensation. In this case about 5000 EUR / year.
350$ / year for a small open access journal if you don't print.
https://www.martineve.com/2012...
Well, the important point is that you learn some generic stuff (shell scripting) and then one can apply this knowledge in many different places. So I just learned a bit of scripting in the past and was able to change my init scripts when I needed to. In the future I will have to look stuff up every time I need to change something - not cool.
"lose dose" -> "low dose" ... estimates dose" -> "LNT ... estimates risk"
"LNT
You don't get to assume spherical cows in a vacuum on this one.
One interesting study of radiologists showed they actually fared a bit better than people without that small extra dose of radiation.
You can find "interesting studies" showing that homeopathy work etc... I work with MDs who expose themselves to radiation to help others. I have also worked in a radiotherapy lab in the past. I am not scared of radiation. But I know most of the related literature and the overwhelming consensus is that radiation is harmful at any dose. The idea that LNT is obsolete is a fringe position in the scientific community which almost nobody even takes seriously.
Meanwhile, a rate limited repair mechanism would imply a threshold point where the harm goes way up once above it, or if you prefer, it goes down on the low side.
This is true, but this is a highly contrived scenario. Why would a repair mechanism be rate-limited at such low doses? This is not plausible at all. A repair mechanism might get overwhelmed at high dose, but we talk about extremely lose dose. Think about it a bit more: A rate-limited repair mechanism at extremely low dose would imply that a cell hit by ionizing radiaton somehow decides not to repair a double-strand break because slightly more other cells have been hit than usual and the (body-wide?) repair limit has been reached. Why would something like this evolve? How would the body keep track of this limit? How would an individual cell even know?
Even the simplest model where there is a minimum stimulation to activate the repair mechanism which has a limited capacity would result in three different regions in a graph of exposure vs. risk. That doesn't sound at all linear to me, how about you?
This is not the simplest model. The simplest model is that there is no extra stimulation of repair mechanism at such tiny additional doses and repair is just the regular repair mechanisms (which are already very good). This is the simplest model and directly leads to LNT. Again, it is also the most plausible: Why should there be a additional repair mechanisms already at such tiny additional dose? But even the idea that extra repair is stimulated at low dose means that LNT underestimates dose, only if you assume that repair gets overwhelmed already at very small additional dose leads to the idea that LNT could overestimate dose... Again, it is not plausible at all that a tiny additional dose already overwhelms our repair mechanisms.
As for whether LNT over or under estimates the risk, that would depend on what parts of the complex curve the statistical samples came from.
Exactly, but while it is theoretically possible that non-linear effects exist, there is - so far - no clear evidence for such non-linear effect at extremely low dose. So the simplest theory which has to be preferred by Occam's razor is the linear one. And at moderate dose we know that the effect linear.
I like init scripts. One can understand them without having to look up the hard-coded keywords for systemd features.
I am not entirely sure what your point is . The first number seems to be a prediction for a large group of affected people and the second the number of cases in a specific subgroup of people, so it does not contradict the first. In fact, the conclusion from the latter study is "We found a significant linear dose response for all leukemia".
Since we know our cells have some ability to repair radiation damage but that it is rate limited, LNT would actually be an astonishing result.
You seem to believe this. As a physicist, I disagree. Even from very basic arguments it is clear that LNT is natural assumption. The effect is either purely statistical (each hit from ionizing radiation carries a very small independent risk that it is not repaired properly and causes cancer) : Then it must be linear. Or there is some kind of feedback mechanism, i.e. bit more radiation stimulates additional repair. Then it is also approximately linear for very small changes in radiation but maybe indeed be non-linear for slightly higher changes in radiation. The problem with this is: 1. We do not have any clear evidence for this. 2. It would imply that LNT _underestimates_ the risk because repair is not as good for lower doses (where repair is not stimulated) and linearly extrapolating from high doses to low doses therefor underestimates the risk. A non-linear effect which would cause the linear prediction to overestimate the risk would be if the repair mechanisms get overwhelmed at some point, but is absurd to assume that this is the case at such low dose (as many point out, we adapted to some level of radiation).
Again, that you think that googling for confirmation is a meaningful contribution in a scientific discussion just shows how detached you are from reality.
The error bars are big enough to cover any conclusion you'd care to make.
Well, effects are small, but it is another study where the data is an agreement with LNT and provides no evidence for any non-linear effect. We also have large scale studies for exposure from CT with similar conclusions. At higher dose, we have the data from atomic bomb survivors which indicates a linear relationship. Finally, we have good understanding about how ionizing radiation causes cancer and this implies a linear relationship even at low dose, and there is not any convincing explanation or evidence for a non-linear effect at such low doses.
Even the summary table shows U.S. workers with more cancer but lass radiation dose than U.K. workers.
That is a meaningless comment. There can be many reasons why there are a different numbers of cancers for U.K. and U.S unrelated to radiation.
Well, it is the low dose regime, where the effect is believed to be essentially statistical which means that it must be linear (the risk from individual double strand breaks to get cancer accumulates). Of course you can speculate that there is a non-statistical effect because some kind of response mechanism is triggered by radiation which goes beyond simple repair mechanisms which are always active. Such mechanisms exist but there is not much evidence that they play a role at very low doses. It is also obvious that the most natural assumptions about those mechanisms would imply that LNT _underestimates_ the cancer risk at low doses, because additional repair stimulated by radiation would reduce risk with higher dose.
Finally, it is not much me who believes that LNT is still our best guess. It is the scientific consensus, which you can easily confirm by doing a proper literature search. Ofcourse, if you just google you will find a lot of website stating the opposite.
This is misleading on multiple levels. Germany does not import a huge amount of energy from France. Germany is a net-exporter of energy and has easily enough power generation capacity to sustain itself. It imports from France only at certain times when France has to get rid of its surplus and it is simply cheaper to buy from France than to produce it from coal or gas. The feed-in tariff for renewables certainly increases electricity prices in Germany, but it is only a small part of the total price, so not the sole reason why electricity is more expensive in Germany. Germany also has a very stable grid which costs money to maintain (and I lived in Germany and the US - I know how crappy the grid in the US is in comparison). Also it has to be said that a lot of money was sunk into nuclear energy in the past, but this was paid from general taxes, so not visible in the electricity price. The same could have been done for renewables, but it was an intentional decision to have consumers pay for it directly to promote conservation (which is working by the way: Germany is reducing consumption by a few percent every year).
You can make very good arguments to why one should not freak out about radiation even from accidents such as Fukushima. But please, dear nuclear fanboys, don't base it on non-mainstream scientific positions (to put it nicely) such as "LNT is wrong". This only makes you look stupid.
The LINEAR part is wrong because intracellular coping mechanisms(DNA repair, mopping up reactive oxygen species(which is one of the damage modes of ionizing radiation)) have a range in which they function optimally. Asssuming a fully linear relationship there could no repair or maintenance done at all which is a ridiculous suggestion.
Why do you think this? A linear relationship at low doses is fully consistent with repair. You are reading the wrong websites.
The NO THRESHOLD part doesn't hold up either as there's no detectable cancer rate curve among radiation worker that correlates to their doses inside the allowed intervals.
Radiation workers receive a very low dose, so obviously the minimal excess risk is hard to detect. But this does not imply it doesn't exist.
But funny: There just appeared a large scale study which claims to show this effect:
http://www.bmj.com/content/351...
If we compare a radiation worker that only does administrative work and accumulates 1mSv to one that works in a hotlab and accumulates 16mSv we should see a 16 times increase in radiation related cancer according to the LNT, but that's not what we see in the real world.
There is a huge risk to get cancer anyway. What is 16 times bigger is the additional excess risk which is extremely small even if it is 16 times bigger.
We can statistically detect the effect from very low dose received in CT scans in large scale studies:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
http://www.bmj.com/content/346...
I don't get quite get what you man by simple backtracking problem....
The math gets much nicer if you look at GHZ states with three particles. I am not sure if this is accessible to experiments yet, but the interesting effect becomes very clear..
Only if you subscribe to the linear no-threshold model which we know is wrong.
Other in the fairy-tale world of slashdot's nuclear fanboys, we know nothing like that. In fact, we have a lot of confirming evidence
that the LNT holds to very small doses.
We live on a planet bathed in radiation and our biology has evolved to deal with this.
This is a fallacy. That we adapted to radiation doesn't mean that radiation is good for us.
the problem is we don't have a better model to use for policy recommendations but don't confuse that with reality.
The problem is people having opinions about science without being able to read the relevant scientific literature.
The crucial piece you are missing is that the results depend on the type of measurement Bob and Alice perform. If you want to simulate this on a classical computer, to get the correct statistics you need the information of the type of measurement performed on the other side. In other words, if you instead of entangled particles send two classical computers to alice and bob which should simulate results with correct statistics, those computers need to communicate to achieve this.
But the publishers do not decide what's worth to see. The editors and reviewers do this job. So no, the publishers do not contribute much and we (scientists) are indeed in the progress in cutting them out. The reason why it takes so long is simply momentum: The journals with high reputation get to pick the good submissions because it is important for (especially young) scientists to publish in journals with high reputation. The journals with high reputation are most of the time old journals which are published by evil publishers which try to sell access for insane fees to university libraries (which cannot afford to drop subscriptions to high reputation journals). But things are changing...
I disagree. Wayland is essentially a subset of what X11 can do. It is based on sending messages over a unix domain socket and sharing buffers. This is exactly what modern X clients also do. This is no surprise: It was designed to support exactly what is needed for modern clients and no more with the explicit goal to get rid of everything else. But it does not add anything which you cannot also do in basically the same way with X.
Trying to say that just because it uses sockets makes it like X11 doesn't make it so.
This is not what I said. I said Wayland is similar by design to a subset of X because it is designed that way. Domain sockets and sharing buffers matters because those things essentially determine the performance.
This is true. This is about retaining backwards compatibility.
Right... so we must maintain backwards compatibility for barely used functionality even when it impacts on performance in the every day use case. And even when you can have backwards compatibility by running Xwayland or by running X11 without Wayland while everyone else enjoys a better experience.
Unsubstantiated claims: 1. It does impact performance in every day use case. 2. people will enjoy a better experience.
Xwayland will certainly not be everywhere (it already isn't), breaking compatibility in practice. Also Xwayland is only one direction of compatibility. Wayland clients will not work with X. And yes, I think maintaining compatibility is important.
Extensions are nice way to make modern rendering possible without breaking backwards possibility. "fool" "2D-centric" "1980" is just FUD to make it sound bad, but X supports modern applications just fine. You have no technical argument.
It's not FUD, it's true. X11 is from an age where the screen screen was a bitmap and every window to be a region in that bitmap.
How is it relevant from what age X11 is? It isn't. X has a very open and flexible design and has been extended many times to adapt it to new use cases without breaking compatibility. That things were done differently originally does not matter as long as you can do it differently today.
When you moved one window over another the server would throw out damage events and every client would repaint their areas. And x, y coordinates for mouse moves were simple transforms from screen to window coords.
This model is totally discordant with a modern compositing desktop.
And yet, X supports a modern compositing desktop just fine.
X11 has gained a compositor extension which is hacked into this model but underneath it still thinks the same way. So the compositor must duplicate state from X11 except sometimes windows might be scaling or otherwise not where X11 thinks they are. So all the x, y mouse coords are screwed up and don't map properly.
For some reason, it works just fine in practice.
Oh and because the compositor is a separate process it means extra context switches in and out of the damage event so the server can preserve its worldview.
In Wayland the compositor, server and window manager are the same process. So the state isn't duplicated or mismatched and compositing does not require a context switch.
You could merge all that stuff into a single process without changing the protocol on wire. Not that I think it would make any noticeable difference. But if it matters form some gamer who wants to play a game in a rotating and wobbling window or something, this could certainly be done... But I would like to see benchmarks first.
Because modern clients work essentially in the same way on X as on Wayland, nothing is slower or less efficient. Just because some API is based on an extension or not doesn't make it faster or slower. This is