No one, AFAIK, is getting rid of the existing X11 support in Xaw, Tk, Motif, GDK, or any of the other X11-supporting toolkits applications are written in as part of adding Wayland support (if Wayland support is added at all, e.g. it's unlikely for Xaw and Motif;) ). Wayland will just be another rendering target backend in these toolkits.
GNOME and KDE are not going to migrate to Wayland only. They're going to continue to use toolkit libraries, and the toolkit libraries will handle the details of rendering (or indeed, other libraries underneath the toolkit library will).
E.g. KDE does not contain an X11 protocol implementation, it isn't even written to directly use Xlib or XCB. It's written on top of Qt. And Qt already supports rendering to Wayland via lighthoutse. Ditto for GNOME and GTK+/GDK.
These libraries already support multiple rendering backends, from rendering to dumb framebuffers (for use on embedded devices) to rendering to X11 across a network. These libraries are simply going to acquire another such rendering backend, for Wayland. The existing rendering backends, like X11, are not going to suddenly disappear. Not any time soon. Not any time where X11 sees any kind of significant use or vendor support.
The toolkits applications use (e.g. GTK+, Qt, Wx, etc) will continue to support rendering to X11. There is a rootless X server for Wayland, which will continue to exist.
In short, X11 will continue to work just fine with Wayland. Just think of Wayland as a better architecture for the X server.
We already have N incompatible ways today - X11, VNC, RDP, NX, etc. All Wayland intends to do is to move *1* of them from the display server out to the toolkits. That's not going to have much visible effect to the user, except perhaps the smoother rendering of local apps, because the local path can have a simpler architecture now
And Wayland will not be able to display efficiently to any other machine. It will require some shitty pixel-scraping technology like VNC.
No, that isn't true. Nothing prevents Wayland supporting toolkits from using whatever kind of display protocol they want, from low-level pixel grabs of windows, to using more abstract drawing commands that match the higher-level structure/behaviour of the application. Indeed, a toolkit could easily use X11 as that protocol, if it wished - and that's already possible with XWayland, I understand.
You seem to have completely missed the point of my reply. Again, apps for Wayland will almost certainly be written to use a toolkit library like GTK+/GDK or Qt. The app itself will *not* be written directly for Wayland - that'd be insane, because that'd require the application to completely re-implement its own child-window and input handling, as well as widgets (i.e. re-implement the stuff Qt, GTK+, etc already provide). So the app will be Wayland agnostic. Instead it will be GTK+/GDK or Qt that does the Wayland rendering. These toolkits *already* support multiple rendering backends, already support X11 (via Xlib or XCB) - and this can be runtime selectable.
So, again, the applications will be written using some toolkit, like GTK+/GDK or Qt, like they already are today. The toolkits will determine what display protocols are supported. These could easily allow you to choose whether to render locally or via X11, at runtime, as they already today are capable of supporting rendering choices at runtime. Hell, they could even do it transparently, without asking you, based on whether DISPLAY is set or not.
b. I get up from my desk and grab my notebook/tablet/smartphone/etc. and I want to simply transfer the remotely displayed application to the other device.. *cannot be done*. Note how I spotted this problem 10 years ago?
Actually, I was able to do this just fine, 10 odd years ago with iPaqs handheld and GPE, which was X based. I could bounce GPE applications from my iPaq to main computer, so that I could use my main keyboard and display with the application (much handier than the pen based input on the iPaq). There's nothing in X that stops this from being implemented. It's the clients (i.e. there toolkits) which have to learn to switch between servers. Alternatively, it can be done done with an X server proxy - at least architecturally. (I can't actually remember which way the GPE solution did it).
Yes, it is an appeal to authority. However, if you're interested, you can easily find talks by those authorities explaining those trade-offs. E.g. the link I gave contains a long report on a talk by Keith Packard.
All they chant is how it will be possible to run Wayland apps in an Xserver running under Wayland. But that does NOTHING for apps that are designed for and compiled for Wayland. THEY will have zero network transparency and will not run on remote Xservers
Where are these apps? Why will their authors have chosen to write their applications directly on top of a low-level rendering library? It's pretty unlikely. Rather, they'll be writing using a toolkit, like GTK+/GDK or Qt, etc. And these toolkits *already* support multiple rendering backends, from bare-framebuffers, to X11 (via Xlib or XCB or whatever).
The people working on Wayland have used X11. Indeed, in many cases they are *also* X.org developers. Hell, one of the people working on Wayland is Keith Packard[1], who's been working on X.org since longer than I've been using Unix. Indeed, he's been working on X11 since before many of us had even used a computer, indeed for anyone younger than 24 make that "since before you were born". Hence, to say the people who are working on Wayland do not understand X is just a ridiculous argument, and does not suggest the person making that argument has much credibility on the subject.
I'll be honest, I was a little sceptical when I read about some of the design decisions in Wayland. In particular, the decision to move some of the window management to the application (in general, that means the toolkit, like Qt, GTK+, etc) makes me wince a bit, because it will lead to the hung-window-syndrome we know and love from MS Windows. However, the people involved in Wayland know far far far more about the subject than I do (I have no experience of designing or implementing windowing systems), and I'm sure they know a lot more about balancing the various trade-offs for and against all these decisions than most of us.
As for the remote displays. I was initially concerned about that capability too. However, if you look into it, well there's nothing that stops X11 being used with Wayland - indeed X server to render to Wayland already exists. Generally, there's nothing to prevent whatever style of remote display protocol being implemented for Wayland, be that in applications directly or (more sensibly) in the toolkits.
Pedantry: The X *clients*[1] may be able to snoop on all your keystrokes, including to other applications, and read what is on your display.
1. The X clients are the applications you run, which connect to the X server. The X server is responsible for co-ordinating drawing to the display. X client may run remote from the X server. The X server typically runs local, on the machine you're sitting in front of, and whose display screen you're looking at. I.e. in X, the server is the local bit (on your machine) and the clients are (potentially) remote, running on other machines - this often confuses people.;)
Oh, and Rebecca Soni, of the USA, improved the world record for the 200m breast-stroke from 2:20.12 to 2:19.59 over 2 races on 2 back-to-back days, an improvement of 0.53s - which is an improvement of 0.3782% over the previous time. Ye Shi Wen improved the WR in the *400m* medley from 4:29.45 to 4:28.43, 1.02s - which is a 0.3785% improvement.
If you think Ye Shi Wen's improvement of 0.3785% is so impossible that it must have been because of doping, I hope you'll also similarly be accusing Rebecca Soni. If you don't, you're a hypocrite.
She didn't beat her previous best time by 5 seconds. Her personal best has improved by 5s over the last *two years* - you can easily check that. It is far from unknown for swimmers to make great leaps in their performance between the ages of 14 and 16. Indeed, it would be unusual if they *didn't*. Ian Thorpe, the Australian Olympic gold medallist, stated on BBC that he improved by 5s in just *one* year at around that age.
Why do DUIs on a driving record matter for a manual labour job??? Indeed, drug test fails won't matter much, in a practical sense, for many kinds of manual labour work either.
Eh? Where did I claim you never poop? Or that exercise can continue indefinitely without any input? Are you sure you read my comment?
Of course there may be different efficiencies. Still it remains a physical fact that putting less energy into the system than is expended MUST, in time, lead to a reduction of energy and/or mass (so in the case where the system is human and energy is stored chemically - that means a reduction in mass). Efficiencies only affect the rates at which this happen.
If you really won't accept that, then I'm pretty sure you're delusional, in at least one way.;)
The difficulties people have with weight loss are nearly always mental - motivation, knowledge, will-power, the huge cravings we can have for food, etc. Sometimes, there may be hormonal reasons that make these more powerful or difficult to overcome.
You can consider it a 2-part closed system, the human and the outside environment. You don't care about fully determining the outside environment, you only care about determining what happens to the human. While you can not easily measure every input and output, nor easily determine precisely the effect each such input/output will have on the human, it however is *trivial* to measure the net result on the human system. Even without precisely knowing the inputs and outputs or their effects, you have great control over them and can modulate them (both inputs to the human and many processes within the human that affect the outputs) and observe the net effects. With a modicum of experimentation, it is trivial to keep the human in equilibrium or increase/decrease their mass at will. Further, many other humans have already done this experimentation, so there's already plenty of clues as to what modulation of which variables are likely to give what results.
If you really think otherwise, if you really are suggesting that there are some people out there whose mass will not decrease no matter how much they reduce their food intake and increase exercise, then you really are denying physical reality. I would also start to wonder if you are in fact in that set of delusional people I mentioned earlier (why else argue so strongly against reality).
Note, that while it is trivial to control the human's mass at will, it is not trivial for the human itself to exercise the will-power to control its own inputs. Evolution has equipped us with deep desires to consume food wherever and whenever available.
I strongly suspect that, in the set of obese people who/believe/ they are on a healthy fruit & veg diet, the proportion who are self-delusional about their diet greatly outweighs those who/really/ are on a healthy fruit & veg diet but for whom it isn't working. Indeed, I'd say the latter number are insignificant compared to the former.
FWIW, I eat a fairly healthy fruit & veg & nuts diet. I can definitely put on weight on it. So I'll agree with you it's quite possible. However to do so requires fairly excessive binging on dried fruit & nuts, at least for me. Also, nb, salted, oiled and/or roasted nuts don't count as healthy... (Added salt is bad for you, and roasting makes the nuts much easier to break down and digest).
Obese people not infrequently are self-delusional about what they eat. They'll say "But I only eat fruit & veg", but if you observe them it can often be quite a different story.
Slashdot Mirror
No one, AFAIK, is getting rid of the existing X11 support in Xaw, Tk, Motif, GDK, or any of the other X11-supporting toolkits applications are written in as part of adding Wayland support (if Wayland support is added at all, e.g. it's unlikely for Xaw and Motif ;) ). Wayland will just be another rendering target backend in these toolkits.
No one is getting rid of X11... Calm down, relax.
GNOME and KDE are not going to migrate to Wayland only. They're going to continue to use toolkit libraries, and the toolkit libraries will handle the details of rendering (or indeed, other libraries underneath the toolkit library will).
E.g. KDE does not contain an X11 protocol implementation, it isn't even written to directly use Xlib or XCB. It's written on top of Qt. And Qt already supports rendering to Wayland via lighthoutse. Ditto for GNOME and GTK+/GDK.
These libraries already support multiple rendering backends, from rendering to dumb framebuffers (for use on embedded devices) to rendering to X11 across a network. These libraries are simply going to acquire another such rendering backend, for Wayland. The existing rendering backends, like X11, are not going to suddenly disappear. Not any time soon. Not any time where X11 sees any kind of significant use or vendor support.
The toolkits applications use (e.g. GTK+, Qt, Wx, etc) will continue to support rendering to X11. There is a rootless X server for Wayland, which will continue to exist.
In short, X11 will continue to work just fine with Wayland. Just think of Wayland as a better architecture for the X server.
Uhm, it's hardware vendors who are paying for the work on Wayland, and the Linux graphics stack generally. Most notably Intel.
We already have N incompatible ways today - X11, VNC, RDP, NX, etc. All Wayland intends to do is to move *1* of them from the display server out to the toolkits. That's not going to have much visible effect to the user, except perhaps the smoother rendering of local apps, because the local path can have a simpler architecture now
And Wayland will not be able to display efficiently to any other machine. It will require some shitty pixel-scraping technology like VNC.
No, that isn't true. Nothing prevents Wayland supporting toolkits from using whatever kind of display protocol they want, from low-level pixel grabs of windows, to using more abstract drawing commands that match the higher-level structure/behaviour of the application. Indeed, a toolkit could easily use X11 as that protocol, if it wished - and that's already possible with XWayland, I understand.
You seem to have completely missed the point of my reply. Again, apps for Wayland will almost certainly be written to use a toolkit library like GTK+/GDK or Qt. The app itself will *not* be written directly for Wayland - that'd be insane, because that'd require the application to completely re-implement its own child-window and input handling, as well as widgets (i.e. re-implement the stuff Qt, GTK+, etc already provide). So the app will be Wayland agnostic. Instead it will be GTK+/GDK or Qt that does the Wayland rendering. These toolkits *already* support multiple rendering backends, already support X11 (via Xlib or XCB) - and this can be runtime selectable.
So, again, the applications will be written using some toolkit, like GTK+/GDK or Qt, like they already are today. The toolkits will determine what display protocols are supported. These could easily allow you to choose whether to render locally or via X11, at runtime, as they already today are capable of supporting rendering choices at runtime. Hell, they could even do it transparently, without asking you, based on whether DISPLAY is set or not.
b. I get up from my desk and grab my notebook/tablet/smartphone/etc. and I want to simply transfer the remotely displayed application to the other device.. *cannot be done*.
Note how I spotted this problem 10 years ago?
Actually, I was able to do this just fine, 10 odd years ago with iPaqs handheld and GPE, which was X based. I could bounce GPE applications from my iPaq to main computer, so that I could use my main keyboard and display with the application (much handier than the pen based input on the iPaq). There's nothing in X that stops this from being implemented. It's the clients (i.e. there toolkits) which have to learn to switch between servers. Alternatively, it can be done done with an X server proxy - at least architecturally. (I can't actually remember which way the GPE solution did it).
Yes, it is an appeal to authority. However, if you're interested, you can easily find talks by those authorities explaining those trade-offs. E.g. the link I gave contains a long report on a talk by Keith Packard.
Well, GDK (low-level library used by GTK+) has support for HTML5, apparently: http://blogs.gnome.org/alexl/2011/03/15/gtk-html-backend-update/
All they chant is how it will be possible to run Wayland apps in an Xserver running under Wayland. But that does NOTHING for apps that are designed for and compiled for Wayland. THEY will have zero network transparency and will not run on remote Xservers
Where are these apps? Why will their authors have chosen to write their applications directly on top of a low-level rendering library? It's pretty unlikely. Rather, they'll be writing using a toolkit, like GTK+/GDK or Qt, etc. And these toolkits *already* support multiple rendering backends, from bare-framebuffers, to X11 (via Xlib or XCB or whatever).
The people working on Wayland have used X11. Indeed, in many cases they are *also* X.org developers. Hell, one of the people working on Wayland is Keith Packard[1], who's been working on X.org since longer than I've been using Unix. Indeed, he's been working on X11 since before many of us had even used a computer, indeed for anyone younger than 24 make that "since before you were born". Hence, to say the people who are working on Wayland do not understand X is just a ridiculous argument, and does not suggest the person making that argument has much credibility on the subject.
I'll be honest, I was a little sceptical when I read about some of the design decisions in Wayland. In particular, the decision to move some of the window management to the application (in general, that means the toolkit, like Qt, GTK+, etc) makes me wince a bit, because it will lead to the hung-window-syndrome we know and love from MS Windows. However, the people involved in Wayland know far far far more about the subject than I do (I have no experience of designing or implementing windowing systems), and I'm sure they know a lot more about balancing the various trade-offs for and against all these decisions than most of us.
As for the remote displays. I was initially concerned about that capability too. However, if you look into it, well there's nothing that stops X11 being used with Wayland - indeed X server to render to Wayland already exists. Generally, there's nothing to prevent whatever style of remote display protocol being implemented for Wayland, be that in applications directly or (more sensibly) in the toolkits.
1. Keith Packard on Wayland and X: https://lwn.net/Articles/491509/
Pedantry: The X *clients*[1] may be able to snoop on all your keystrokes, including to other applications, and read what is on your display.
1. The X clients are the applications you run, which connect to the X server. The X server is responsible for co-ordinating drawing to the display. X client may run remote from the X server. The X server typically runs local, on the machine you're sitting in front of, and whose display screen you're looking at. I.e. in X, the server is the local bit (on your machine) and the clients are (potentially) remote, running on other machines - this often confuses people. ;)
Remote display protocols, like X11, VNC, etc., will still be able to render to Wayland displays.
People have considered that, and they're working on Wayland as a result.
Wayland isn't a Canonical thing. There's a bunch of people from various companies working on it, including Intel and RedHat.
Oh, and Rebecca Soni, of the USA, improved the world record for the 200m breast-stroke from 2:20.12 to 2:19.59 over 2 races on 2 back-to-back days, an improvement of 0.53s - which is an improvement of 0.3782% over the previous time. Ye Shi Wen improved the WR in the *400m* medley from 4:29.45 to 4:28.43, 1.02s - which is a 0.3785% improvement.
If you think Ye Shi Wen's improvement of 0.3785% is so impossible that it must have been because of doping, I hope you'll also similarly be accusing Rebecca Soni. If you don't, you're a hypocrite.
She didn't beat her previous best time by 5 seconds. Her personal best has improved by 5s over the last *two years* - you can easily check that. It is far from unknown for swimmers to make great leaps in their performance between the ages of 14 and 16. Indeed, it would be unusual if they *didn't*. Ian Thorpe, the Australian Olympic gold medallist, stated on BBC that he improved by 5s in just *one* year at around that age.
Why do DUIs on a driving record matter for a manual labour job??? Indeed, drug test fails won't matter much, in a practical sense, for many kinds of manual labour work either.
Eh? Where did I claim you never poop? Or that exercise can continue indefinitely without any input? Are you sure you read my comment?
Of course there may be different efficiencies. Still it remains a physical fact that putting less energy into the system than is expended MUST, in time, lead to a reduction of energy and/or mass (so in the case where the system is human and energy is stored chemically - that means a reduction in mass). Efficiencies only affect the rates at which this happen.
If you really won't accept that, then I'm pretty sure you're delusional, in at least one way. ;)
The difficulties people have with weight loss are nearly always mental - motivation, knowledge, will-power, the huge cravings we can have for food, etc. Sometimes, there may be hormonal reasons that make these more powerful or difficult to overcome.
Dried fruit that I eat don't have added sugar. However, they are very sweet, energy dense, and pretty close to candy. Yes.
Rubbish.
You can consider it a 2-part closed system, the human and the outside environment. You don't care about fully determining the outside environment, you only care about determining what happens to the human. While you can not easily measure every input and output, nor easily determine precisely the effect each such input/output will have on the human, it however is *trivial* to measure the net result on the human system. Even without precisely knowing the inputs and outputs or their effects, you have great control over them and can modulate them (both inputs to the human and many processes within the human that affect the outputs) and observe the net effects. With a modicum of experimentation, it is trivial to keep the human in equilibrium or increase/decrease their mass at will. Further, many other humans have already done this experimentation, so there's already plenty of clues as to what modulation of which variables are likely to give what results.
If you really think otherwise, if you really are suggesting that there are some people out there whose mass will not decrease no matter how much they reduce their food intake and increase exercise, then you really are denying physical reality. I would also start to wonder if you are in fact in that set of delusional people I mentioned earlier (why else argue so strongly against reality).
Note, that while it is trivial to control the human's mass at will, it is not trivial for the human itself to exercise the will-power to control its own inputs. Evolution has equipped us with deep desires to consume food wherever and whenever available.
So conservation of energy and mass are just the result of confirmation bias. Uh huh...
I strongly suspect that, in the set of obese people who /believe/ they are on a healthy fruit & veg diet, the proportion who are self-delusional about their diet greatly outweighs those who /really/ are on a healthy fruit & veg diet but for whom it isn't working. Indeed, I'd say the latter number are insignificant compared to the former.
FWIW, I eat a fairly healthy fruit & veg & nuts diet. I can definitely put on weight on it. So I'll agree with you it's quite possible. However to do so requires fairly excessive binging on dried fruit & nuts, at least for me. Also, nb, salted, oiled and/or roasted nuts don't count as healthy... (Added salt is bad for you, and roasting makes the nuts much easier to break down and digest).
Obese people not infrequently are self-delusional about what they eat. They'll say "But I only eat fruit & veg", but if you observe them it can often be quite a different story.