I see the potential for freelancing, but not liking the terms of engagement here. If I wanted to freelance, I'd not want to give up everything to a company as if I were an employee. As it stands there are plenty of places that will find clients, do the paperwork, and give me a good steady wage for doing so. Now if they compensated well per job, that could be nice, but somehow I doubt they'd be able to do that and yet be competitive with the market.
Well, yes, that's the deal pretty plainly spelled out.
Traditionally you trade in the potential for big upside for consistency of a paycheck. Or you surrender the consistency for a chance to control your destiny and maybe make some surprisingly big bucks because you get to keep ownership of it.
Here the company sees it being 'cool' to surrender the consistency of a paycheck, but still completely surrender ownership and control of your work, and they are understandably exploiting that for all it's worth. Hopefully it blows up in their faces rather than establishing a new normal.
It's not about what should be done, it's about calling companies out on drumming up interest out of words that do not necessarily promise anything.
This is actually refreshing to see someone call out a company for making nice sounding announcements devoid of any meaningful way to evaluate their actual performance against their press release promises. It's something almost every company does and has done for a long time. Particularly as lazy journalism has allowed corporate press releases to be little more than copy and pasted and run as a 'story' without any sort of analysis. Journalism at that point is little more than just another advertising venue. Except in stories like this where someone bothers to critically consider what is being said and evaluate what has been done.
Of course, there are certain lovable corporations that seem to always get away with this (google and facebook notably) with no one interested in critical assessment and there are certain punching bag corporations (petroleum, banking) that at least entice a few folks to be critical because people will eat it right up. Being hyper critical of those sorts of companies is good (and it's fair to say they've done plenty to deserve it), but I want to see more critical takes on all press releases. If it's worth copy and pasting a company press release for 'journalism', it's worth some effort to explore it in context (or at least clearly mark it as 'pass through press release fluff' somehow).
Yeah, the argument seems to be a weird one in this case. It's one thing to make that sort of argument about drugs/alcohol (those that do it hurt themselves, and that's their prerogative until they do something like drive). If you are opposed to killing animals or abortions, it's because you see it as victimizing a helpless victim, so an argument of cultural relativism doesn't really work.
Now another perspective would be whether the stance is inconsistent with the treatment of other sealife or land mammals. Whaling isn't that dissimilar to a lot of hunting that happens all the time on land.
Of course hunting *does* get restricted in scenarios involving migratory birds, and perhaps this is the relevant comparison point...
It's a tricky thing to balance, but I got the sense that in enterprise they were trying to portray a general 'not got it figured it yet' vibe and a drive to prove themselves as a participant in the interstellar community. That was the whole point in a 'prequel' series after all, exploring a less baked scenario.
I however agree with you that much of the ways they presented defined expectations of how one would expect *modern* day people to cope. Perhaps something short of the always unflappable response of the other Star Trek crews, but something at least as good as how we would imagine our own modern day folks dealing with it.
Though I'll always think that Voyager's premise was the most wasted thing in the various series. You have an isolated crew without hope for any connection to their larger Federation, no oversight, and potentially quite desperate situations. However about 98% of the time, they pretty much acted the exact same and didn't experience problems with having to question their values, always seemed to have allies enough to get them through, and always had the resources they needed (limitless energy and replicators for everything). A couple of interesting times they broached it, but generally pretty peripherally. Their dealings with the Borg were just over the top (though I think First Contact ruined the Borg concept for me by adding the queen concept).
2) Is interesting in Star Trek. Spock was the science officer with a wide breadth of knowledge. Vulcans also had a long lifespan.
In TNG, was an android, with different set of rules around learning information, so again a reasonable explanation for the accumulation of knowledge.
Even in Enterprise, they had a guiding Vulcan presence, with the same longevity benefit.
Voyager didn't have an apparent person in this role until 7 of 9, at which point one could say being part of the collective gave her a way to know way more than a human should be able to accumulate.
But in short, it seems like yes, it's going to be harder for a team that just did a window manager for X11 to do the same thing in Wayland, since Wayland architecture puts the display server, window manager, and compositing roles all mashed together.
Now as to application interoperability, I'm not sure. I would hope like in X11, that there is a set of structured protocols to describe thnigs that is standardized allowing interoperability.
Some examples where things are more to do with the context than the language.
For example, SQL injection very very high proportion of php code deals with a SQL database. However in other languages, this isn't quite as ubiquitous. The likelihood that a C++ application even touches SQL is far lower than a php application. Same for XSS (they referenced locally running iOS and Android applications, suggesting that not all code might even be dealing with scenarios where XSS is applicable).
There are a few things where language choice is a factor (buffer overflow, buffer management), but there's a lot of attempts to compare very different applications to each other and assume equivalence.
This is about problem domain where the language is popular more than it is about the language. It's an interesting commentary on the sorts of mistakes developers should be on the lookout for and perhaps motivation for language runtimes to think about things they might possible mitigate, but hard to say 'php is plain worse than objective c', which is what the report is saying.
It doesn't seem like something that could be really tested. If it's all a simulation where we are not supposed to be aware we are a simulation, then it stands to reason any test that we do will fail to dig up something or else be readily explained by something else. I suppose it could be shown to be a simple explanation if they said 'overclock this region of space' and weird things happened (though even then, someone could say it's God having fun in real reality rather than an admin having fun with simulated reality).
It stands to reason that such a theory could be the basis of a faith, but it's not a scientifically testable thing. It could be true, could be false, but we have no way of knowing. Just like which and if any religious faith is correct.
Natural is relative. HGPS has a 'natural' lifespan of 13 years, but I don't think anyone questions its classification as a disease.
Bacteria is natural, and yet we have antibiotics because we would rather not die from an infection when we could live longer.
Conversely, airplanes, cars, spaceships, air conditioning, computers, and everything else is distinctly unnatural.
I don't think 'men of science' are particularly inclined to surrender to the current state of nature. I don't see how religion even theoretically plays into this.
People don't die of old age, they die of diabetes, heart attacks, strokes, car accidents, etc.
No one dies from 'old age', they die of some specific thing as the body wears out. Heart attacks, stroke, diabetes, even car accident risk increases as parts of the body (or in the car accident case, cognitive function) diminishes with age.
It's an interesting question if hypothetically we could stop aging process (or even reverse it).... How the hell would society handle it. Now if an unavoidable side effect of the treatment were sterility, that would be one thing. If we can procreate, what to do about it, as some pretty horrific inhumane scenarios could evolve (starvation, or execution as a matter of course for no reason...)
One interesting thought to me is that if you say, mandated death at age of 160 in a society where mid-20s body lasted til the bitter end, that would probably be widely viewed as inhumane. So if you could either divulge a method to stop aging or avoid the discovery of such a discovery, most would side with avoiding it due to the awkwardness of scenarios like that eventuality. So it's more ethical to let someone deteriorate over years and get 80 years of lifespan with the latter half plagued by diminishing quality of life than it would be to give someone twice the lifespan with no deterioration...
If you accept the premise of a genetic 'disease', then it's not so far fetched to call out 'aging' as one. In the realm of genetic 'disease', disease versus normal is a relative thing.
For example, Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome most would call a disease. However if it were universal, it would just be called 'natural'.
If one could hypothetically stop the generally deleterious aspect of getting older, then what do you call it?
Some think that the architecture is such that a seamless remote application experience is not possible with the architecture. That would be more dire than a seamless strategy being possible, just not done.
I just don't see Weston as a long term thing, KDE/Gnome/Xpra I see as the real world implementations of Wayland compositors longer term. Just like xcompmgr was a reference X compositor that briefly was commonly used before being superseded by Window managers integrating the compositing feature with their other duties.
I don't disagree with the sentiment that it's made a pain in the ass for even normal use, however the part about the one person being enough to make the whole thing moot is not true. They can (and do) track down folks doing the unrestricted distribution and cause them difficulty. They would be otherwise unable to do so if netflix was DRM free and people just farmed it off of netflix, leaving them unable to discern the nature of the consumption.
This is the awkwardness of an economic reality trying to accomodate both limited and unlimited resources. Stupid stuff starts happening around things like so-called intellectual property that still requires an investment to make happen, but once produced the 'supply' is essentially unlimited.
At that point, however, they have a shot at detecting and acting on the infringement. Without their draconian DRM BS, people would just hammer a legitimate source in a way that is actually very hard to discern whether the behavior is 'legitimate' or not.
Right, it's one of those things that isn't *as* dire as many X11 proponents would scream in theory, but in practice there's no proof point for all this until someone actually invests the effort in such a compositor/WM.
Generally speaking, a 64 bit build of a browser is actually pretty silly in and of itself. If your browser session needs more than 4GB of ram, there's a problem.
It's not like you would opt out of the WoW64 layer needed to run 32 bit applications in a Windows 64 environment.
In the Linux ecosystem, however, the 32 bit layer is often skipped in new installs, since the proprietary ecosystem is smaller and less demanding of very long support cycle without rebuild.
While they would *love* for it to be outright impossible to copy, their goal is to make it as much a pain in the ass to copy as possible.
Let's say they didn't do any of these DRM shenanigans. You could 'wget http://netflix.com/popular_mov...' and have it run in the background at whatever speed the internet provides. You might have a 90 minute film in less than 10 minutes.
If you screen record, then that means your computer is now watching this video and unable to do anything else for the full duration of the feature. For most folks that's just too much trouble, they would just as soon wait til they want to watch it and stream it live if the computer's going to be tied up anyway.
That's the goal of all this gunk, trying to find a way to maximize inconvenience for those who want to use it in a manner they didn't want while delivering what they deem an acceptable experience. Note that a blu-ray rip of a film or series to mkv and then streaming to Kodi I find a much better experience than Netflix, and I find it frustrating that Content and the delivery channel are being linked (have to use a 'netflix' app for some things, a 'hulu' for others, etc). Basically I don't find the situation 'acceptable', but there aren't enough of me to make a difference in the market. Also so long as I have an application that lets me rip media, I can buy media and circumvent the DRM.
On the other hand, for things like Netflix, where the model is explicitly 'rental', it makes some sense. However always-online DRM for *purchased* content that restricts my choice of playback device/application annoys the piss out of me.
For Wayland, remoting shouldn't really be in the scope IMO.
The place where it should be in scope is the compositor/window manager. This could manifest in a few ways: -A dedicated remote-enablement solution that relays and translates the window management contextual data and the graphical data to the respective platform. This would be like 'Xpra' -Window Managers/Compositors implement their own remoting framework. Notably this could make certain things easier like moving an application from a remote to a local display and changing to a faster rendering path. -A standard emerges for multiple window managers to implement. Same as as above.
Note that the first option is easiest and most reachable. The other options have some nice theoretical benefit, though X11 does not provide them and they would be considered 'extra credit' compared to X11.
Basically, once compositing became the norm, a different structure started making more sense for enabling so-called 'network transparency'. There are people smart enough and doing the right sort of work for this geal, but perhaps not loud enough about their work for people to know.
Besides, the practical benefit of a GTK/QT based protocol is relatively low. Increased processor capacity and improved compression algorithms mean that a toolkit level description of a widget wouldn't be that much smaller than an oblivious 'bitmap' based strategy to describe the same thing. To the extent there is a difference, network throughput for residential WAN is faster than LAN of the era that X11 was developed so it's not as critical.
So such a protocol would mean less interoperability, more complexity, all for very little benefit for remote of a traditional desktop application.
For an application that is used heavily over bad networks (where X11 is already a non starter) where every benefit is needed, a lot more logic needs to be pushed to client side and the current web browsers already provide a suitable remote execution environment.
X11 primitives are admittedly suboptimal for state of the art, but the concern is that recent state of the art remote desktop implementations have been a bit negligent of the 'seamless' facet.
For example, using X11 remoting, little things like notification area and such 'just happen'. Frequently other strategies say 'remote desktop' and dust their hands of making it seamlessly sit in the local display.
Now X11 itself does not do this fully (audio notably is not in scope) or best (X11 primitives aren't interesting, puts client at risk of crash if network issue...). A better approach is to hook things like NETWM as a window manager and the graphics via compositor (a la xpra). Such a strategy wouldn't care one bit about X11. Once upon a time the argument would have been that the facet of having the communication path be abstracted to be network or other paths was important, but compositing created a convenient interception point to make the concern theoretically moot).
The issue is what is popularized. VNC, RDP, and vanilla X11 are the well known examples. Xpra does it right, but no one has heard of Xpra. Even though Xpra's approach would be fully Wayland compatible, it has 'X' in the name and as-yet hasn't bothered with Wayland compatibility, so the knowledge the approach would be portable is not out there. RDP I believe is more capable, but most commonly people experience RDP to a desktop or a 'normal' server, and as such the seamless case isn't presented. So X11 is the *only* thing that people know as ubiquitous and seamless and as such are understandably skeptical about alternatives.
So what needs to be done is for someone to port Xpra or implement something similar and to popularize it. Right now those who understand the technology know how it *could* be done even better than normal X11, but there's a shortage of actual implementation catering to those concerns. There's a lot of 'well, just use freerdp' or 'real applications should be web enabled anyway for remote use', and not enough 'here's a concrete and authoritative seamless remote strategy that fits in with the strategy'.
Big screen size is being positioned as somehow opposed to the concept of 'openness' of web. It's one of a few jumbled concepts in here..
-No, big screens aren't going away, still as popular as ever. Other screens may also be popular as people watch things in a car, at lunch, etc, but big screens are still the go to in the home. -Linear television content's days are numbered, which should be apparent to anyone paying attention since the days of the VCR's popularity. People want the content on their terms and time, and time shifting linear delivery is the workaround to use broadcast technologies. Advanced networks mean the need to broadcast is more and more limited. Business and legal wrangling of licensing terms will keep broadcast television around longer than it should be, but it will happen. Programming -Game consoles are in no way threatened right now. They are massively popular streaming platforms, and Valve's streaming device isn't even on the radar for most folks. Sales of consoles are higher than ever.
Well the post was talking about 5% of people doing this or that, so as a direct response to the comment, usage seems apt.
More popular platform is pretty important even if it's not the favorite. For example I massively prefer a Linux desktop distribution when I'm talking about apples to apples comparison against Windows. However I must use Windows because I need and want software the developers only target Windows. Wine gets far, but ultimately it's an uphill battle. So I have my preferred platform in places, but tolerate Windows because it's the practical choice, not through their technical excellence, but through boring old momentum.
Similarly, I worry about the cost of my preferred hardware platform, desktop systems. If 90% of folks go to a phone, it would be nice if I didn't have a reason to care about what they do, except companies providing these components need to bump margin to offset the reduction of the target market.
No, I presumed the system being a relatively unloved 5 year old platform causes MS to recommend waiting for it to be validated. I've had systems that was eager to update within a week of the announce, but my systems built out of older motherboards are not willing to move forward unless I went out of my way to update them.
A hair more use Windows 10 than OSX currently. About 4 times as many as use Linux. Over 5 times as many use Windows 7, and still more people use XP than any version of windows except 7.
Not necessarily ecstatic about the numbers, but the numbers say that Windows 10 is more relevant than OSX if you want to talk about by usage. This is an OS that's only been available for 4 months from the perspective of most people, and contrary to the way it was discussed in the media, the Windows 10 upgrade in Windows 7 actually is being pretty conservative about upgrading (I have a Windows 7 system that does not prompt, and in fact when I go to explicitly check after a Windows 10 update it still says 'please check back later to see if your platform is validated'. I had updated another system against that recommendation, but am keeping that one in that state just to see how long it would take or if MS would ever 'validate' that platform. So getting close to Windows 8.1 share this quickly is not too shabby by MS standards.
Slashdot Mirror
I see the potential for freelancing, but not liking the terms of engagement here. If I wanted to freelance, I'd not want to give up everything to a company as if I were an employee. As it stands there are plenty of places that will find clients, do the paperwork, and give me a good steady wage for doing so. Now if they compensated well per job, that could be nice, but somehow I doubt they'd be able to do that and yet be competitive with the market.
Well, yes, that's the deal pretty plainly spelled out.
Traditionally you trade in the potential for big upside for consistency of a paycheck. Or you surrender the consistency for a chance to control your destiny and maybe make some surprisingly big bucks because you get to keep ownership of it.
Here the company sees it being 'cool' to surrender the consistency of a paycheck, but still completely surrender ownership and control of your work, and they are understandably exploiting that for all it's worth. Hopefully it blows up in their faces rather than establishing a new normal.
It's not about what should be done, it's about calling companies out on drumming up interest out of words that do not necessarily promise anything.
This is actually refreshing to see someone call out a company for making nice sounding announcements devoid of any meaningful way to evaluate their actual performance against their press release promises. It's something almost every company does and has done for a long time. Particularly as lazy journalism has allowed corporate press releases to be little more than copy and pasted and run as a 'story' without any sort of analysis. Journalism at that point is little more than just another advertising venue. Except in stories like this where someone bothers to critically consider what is being said and evaluate what has been done.
Of course, there are certain lovable corporations that seem to always get away with this (google and facebook notably) with no one interested in critical assessment and there are certain punching bag corporations (petroleum, banking) that at least entice a few folks to be critical because people will eat it right up. Being hyper critical of those sorts of companies is good (and it's fair to say they've done plenty to deserve it), but I want to see more critical takes on all press releases. If it's worth copy and pasting a company press release for 'journalism', it's worth some effort to explore it in context (or at least clearly mark it as 'pass through press release fluff' somehow).
Yeah, the argument seems to be a weird one in this case. It's one thing to make that sort of argument about drugs/alcohol (those that do it hurt themselves, and that's their prerogative until they do something like drive). If you are opposed to killing animals or abortions, it's because you see it as victimizing a helpless victim, so an argument of cultural relativism doesn't really work.
Now another perspective would be whether the stance is inconsistent with the treatment of other sealife or land mammals. Whaling isn't that dissimilar to a lot of hunting that happens all the time on land.
Of course hunting *does* get restricted in scenarios involving migratory birds, and perhaps this is the relevant comparison point...
It's a tricky thing to balance, but I got the sense that in enterprise they were trying to portray a general 'not got it figured it yet' vibe and a drive to prove themselves as a participant in the interstellar community. That was the whole point in a 'prequel' series after all, exploring a less baked scenario.
I however agree with you that much of the ways they presented defined expectations of how one would expect *modern* day people to cope. Perhaps something short of the always unflappable response of the other Star Trek crews, but something at least as good as how we would imagine our own modern day folks dealing with it.
Though I'll always think that Voyager's premise was the most wasted thing in the various series. You have an isolated crew without hope for any connection to their larger Federation, no oversight, and potentially quite desperate situations. However about 98% of the time, they pretty much acted the exact same and didn't experience problems with having to question their values, always seemed to have allies enough to get them through, and always had the resources they needed (limitless energy and replicators for everything). A couple of interesting times they broached it, but generally pretty peripherally. Their dealings with the Borg were just over the top (though I think First Contact ruined the Borg concept for me by adding the queen concept).
2) Is interesting in Star Trek. Spock was the science officer with a wide breadth of knowledge. Vulcans also had a long lifespan.
In TNG, was an android, with different set of rules around learning information, so again a reasonable explanation for the accumulation of knowledge.
Even in Enterprise, they had a guiding Vulcan presence, with the same longevity benefit.
Voyager didn't have an apparent person in this role until 7 of 9, at which point one could say being part of the collective gave her a way to know way more than a human should be able to accumulate.
Well the wikipedia article states some things:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
But in short, it seems like yes, it's going to be harder for a team that just did a window manager for X11 to do the same thing in Wayland, since Wayland architecture puts the display server, window manager, and compositing roles all mashed together.
Now as to application interoperability, I'm not sure. I would hope like in X11, that there is a set of structured protocols to describe thnigs that is standardized allowing interoperability.
Some examples where things are more to do with the context than the language.
For example, SQL injection very very high proportion of php code deals with a SQL database. However in other languages, this isn't quite as ubiquitous. The likelihood that a C++ application even touches SQL is far lower than a php application. Same for XSS (they referenced locally running iOS and Android applications, suggesting that not all code might even be dealing with scenarios where XSS is applicable).
There are a few things where language choice is a factor (buffer overflow, buffer management), but there's a lot of attempts to compare very different applications to each other and assume equivalence.
This is about problem domain where the language is popular more than it is about the language. It's an interesting commentary on the sorts of mistakes developers should be on the lookout for and perhaps motivation for language runtimes to think about things they might possible mitigate, but hard to say 'php is plain worse than objective c', which is what the report is saying.
It doesn't seem like something that could be really tested. If it's all a simulation where we are not supposed to be aware we are a simulation, then it stands to reason any test that we do will fail to dig up something or else be readily explained by something else. I suppose it could be shown to be a simple explanation if they said 'overclock this region of space' and weird things happened (though even then, someone could say it's God having fun in real reality rather than an admin having fun with simulated reality).
It stands to reason that such a theory could be the basis of a faith, but it's not a scientifically testable thing. It could be true, could be false, but we have no way of knowing. Just like which and if any religious faith is correct.
Natural is relative. HGPS has a 'natural' lifespan of 13 years, but I don't think anyone questions its classification as a disease.
Bacteria is natural, and yet we have antibiotics because we would rather not die from an infection when we could live longer.
Conversely, airplanes, cars, spaceships, air conditioning, computers, and everything else is distinctly unnatural.
I don't think 'men of science' are particularly inclined to surrender to the current state of nature. I don't see how religion even theoretically plays into this.
People don't die of old age, they die of diabetes, heart attacks, strokes, car accidents, etc.
No one dies from 'old age', they die of some specific thing as the body wears out. Heart attacks, stroke, diabetes, even car accident risk increases as parts of the body (or in the car accident case, cognitive function) diminishes with age.
It's an interesting question if hypothetically we could stop aging process (or even reverse it).... How the hell would society handle it. Now if an unavoidable side effect of the treatment were sterility, that would be one thing. If we can procreate, what to do about it, as some pretty horrific inhumane scenarios could evolve (starvation, or execution as a matter of course for no reason...)
One interesting thought to me is that if you say, mandated death at age of 160 in a society where mid-20s body lasted til the bitter end, that would probably be widely viewed as inhumane. So if you could either divulge a method to stop aging or avoid the discovery of such a discovery, most would side with avoiding it due to the awkwardness of scenarios like that eventuality. So it's more ethical to let someone deteriorate over years and get 80 years of lifespan with the latter half plagued by diminishing quality of life than it would be to give someone twice the lifespan with no deterioration...
If you accept the premise of a genetic 'disease', then it's not so far fetched to call out 'aging' as one. In the realm of genetic 'disease', disease versus normal is a relative thing.
For example, Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome most would call a disease. However if it were universal, it would just be called 'natural'.
If one could hypothetically stop the generally deleterious aspect of getting older, then what do you call it?
Some think that the architecture is such that a seamless remote application experience is not possible with the architecture. That would be more dire than a seamless strategy being possible, just not done.
I just don't see Weston as a long term thing, KDE/Gnome/Xpra I see as the real world implementations of Wayland compositors longer term. Just like xcompmgr was a reference X compositor that briefly was commonly used before being superseded by Window managers integrating the compositing feature with their other duties.
I don't disagree with the sentiment that it's made a pain in the ass for even normal use, however the part about the one person being enough to make the whole thing moot is not true. They can (and do) track down folks doing the unrestricted distribution and cause them difficulty. They would be otherwise unable to do so if netflix was DRM free and people just farmed it off of netflix, leaving them unable to discern the nature of the consumption.
This is the awkwardness of an economic reality trying to accomodate both limited and unlimited resources. Stupid stuff starts happening around things like so-called intellectual property that still requires an investment to make happen, but once produced the 'supply' is essentially unlimited.
At that point, however, they have a shot at detecting and acting on the infringement. Without their draconian DRM BS, people would just hammer a legitimate source in a way that is actually very hard to discern whether the behavior is 'legitimate' or not.
Right, it's one of those things that isn't *as* dire as many X11 proponents would scream in theory, but in practice there's no proof point for all this until someone actually invests the effort in such a compositor/WM.
Generally speaking, a 64 bit build of a browser is actually pretty silly in and of itself. If your browser session needs more than 4GB of ram, there's a problem.
It's not like you would opt out of the WoW64 layer needed to run 32 bit applications in a Windows 64 environment.
In the Linux ecosystem, however, the 32 bit layer is often skipped in new installs, since the proprietary ecosystem is smaller and less demanding of very long support cycle without rebuild.
While they would *love* for it to be outright impossible to copy, their goal is to make it as much a pain in the ass to copy as possible.
Let's say they didn't do any of these DRM shenanigans. You could 'wget http://netflix.com/popular_mov...' and have it run in the background at whatever speed the internet provides. You might have a 90 minute film in less than 10 minutes.
If you screen record, then that means your computer is now watching this video and unable to do anything else for the full duration of the feature. For most folks that's just too much trouble, they would just as soon wait til they want to watch it and stream it live if the computer's going to be tied up anyway.
That's the goal of all this gunk, trying to find a way to maximize inconvenience for those who want to use it in a manner they didn't want while delivering what they deem an acceptable experience. Note that a blu-ray rip of a film or series to mkv and then streaming to Kodi I find a much better experience than Netflix, and I find it frustrating that Content and the delivery channel are being linked (have to use a 'netflix' app for some things, a 'hulu' for others, etc). Basically I don't find the situation 'acceptable', but there aren't enough of me to make a difference in the market. Also so long as I have an application that lets me rip media, I can buy media and circumvent the DRM.
On the other hand, for things like Netflix, where the model is explicitly 'rental', it makes some sense. However always-online DRM for *purchased* content that restricts my choice of playback device/application annoys the piss out of me.
For Wayland, remoting shouldn't really be in the scope IMO.
The place where it should be in scope is the compositor/window manager. This could manifest in a few ways:
-A dedicated remote-enablement solution that relays and translates the window management contextual data and the graphical data to the respective platform. This would be like 'Xpra'
-Window Managers/Compositors implement their own remoting framework. Notably this could make certain things easier like moving an application from a remote to a local display and changing to a faster rendering path.
-A standard emerges for multiple window managers to implement. Same as as above.
Note that the first option is easiest and most reachable. The other options have some nice theoretical benefit, though X11 does not provide them and they would be considered 'extra credit' compared to X11.
Basically, once compositing became the norm, a different structure started making more sense for enabling so-called 'network transparency'. There are people smart enough and doing the right sort of work for this geal, but perhaps not loud enough about their work for people to know.
Besides, the practical benefit of a GTK/QT based protocol is relatively low. Increased processor capacity and improved compression algorithms mean that a toolkit level description of a widget wouldn't be that much smaller than an oblivious 'bitmap' based strategy to describe the same thing. To the extent there is a difference, network throughput for residential WAN is faster than LAN of the era that X11 was developed so it's not as critical.
So such a protocol would mean less interoperability, more complexity, all for very little benefit for remote of a traditional desktop application.
For an application that is used heavily over bad networks (where X11 is already a non starter) where every benefit is needed, a lot more logic needs to be pushed to client side and the current web browsers already provide a suitable remote execution environment.
X11 primitives are admittedly suboptimal for state of the art, but the concern is that recent state of the art remote desktop implementations have been a bit negligent of the 'seamless' facet.
For example, using X11 remoting, little things like notification area and such 'just happen'. Frequently other strategies say 'remote desktop' and dust their hands of making it seamlessly sit in the local display.
Now X11 itself does not do this fully (audio notably is not in scope) or best (X11 primitives aren't interesting, puts client at risk of crash if network issue...). A better approach is to hook things like NETWM as a window manager and the graphics via compositor (a la xpra). Such a strategy wouldn't care one bit about X11. Once upon a time the argument would have been that the facet of having the communication path be abstracted to be network or other paths was important, but compositing created a convenient interception point to make the concern theoretically moot).
The issue is what is popularized. VNC, RDP, and vanilla X11 are the well known examples. Xpra does it right, but no one has heard of Xpra. Even though Xpra's approach would be fully Wayland compatible, it has 'X' in the name and as-yet hasn't bothered with Wayland compatibility, so the knowledge the approach would be portable is not out there. RDP I believe is more capable, but most commonly people experience RDP to a desktop or a 'normal' server, and as such the seamless case isn't presented. So X11 is the *only* thing that people know as ubiquitous and seamless and as such are understandably skeptical about alternatives.
So what needs to be done is for someone to port Xpra or implement something similar and to popularize it. Right now those who understand the technology know how it *could* be done even better than normal X11, but there's a shortage of actual implementation catering to those concerns. There's a lot of 'well, just use freerdp' or 'real applications should be web enabled anyway for remote use', and not enough 'here's a concrete and authoritative seamless remote strategy that fits in with the strategy'.
Big screen size is being positioned as somehow opposed to the concept of 'openness' of web. It's one of a few jumbled concepts in here..
-No, big screens aren't going away, still as popular as ever. Other screens may also be popular as people watch things in a car, at lunch, etc, but big screens are still the go to in the home.
-Linear television content's days are numbered, which should be apparent to anyone paying attention since the days of the VCR's popularity. People want the content on their terms and time, and time shifting linear delivery is the workaround to use broadcast technologies. Advanced networks mean the need to broadcast is more and more limited. Business and legal wrangling of licensing terms will keep broadcast television around longer than it should be, but it will happen. Programming
-Game consoles are in no way threatened right now. They are massively popular streaming platforms, and Valve's streaming device isn't even on the radar for most folks. Sales of consoles are higher than ever.
Well the post was talking about 5% of people doing this or that, so as a direct response to the comment, usage seems apt.
More popular platform is pretty important even if it's not the favorite. For example I massively prefer a Linux desktop distribution when I'm talking about apples to apples comparison against Windows. However I must use Windows because I need and want software the developers only target Windows. Wine gets far, but ultimately it's an uphill battle. So I have my preferred platform in places, but tolerate Windows because it's the practical choice, not through their technical excellence, but through boring old momentum.
Similarly, I worry about the cost of my preferred hardware platform, desktop systems. If 90% of folks go to a phone, it would be nice if I didn't have a reason to care about what they do, except companies providing these components need to bump margin to offset the reduction of the target market.
No, I presumed the system being a relatively unloved 5 year old platform causes MS to recommend waiting for it to be validated. I've had systems that was eager to update within a week of the announce, but my systems built out of older motherboards are not willing to move forward unless I went out of my way to update them.
A hair more use Windows 10 than OSX currently. About 4 times as many as use Linux. Over 5 times as many use Windows 7, and still more people use XP than any version of windows except 7.
Not necessarily ecstatic about the numbers, but the numbers say that Windows 10 is more relevant than OSX if you want to talk about by usage. This is an OS that's only been available for 4 months from the perspective of most people, and contrary to the way it was discussed in the media, the Windows 10 upgrade in Windows 7 actually is being pretty conservative about upgrading (I have a Windows 7 system that does not prompt, and in fact when I go to explicitly check after a Windows 10 update it still says 'please check back later to see if your platform is validated'. I had updated another system against that recommendation, but am keeping that one in that state just to see how long it would take or if MS would ever 'validate' that platform. So getting close to Windows 8.1 share this quickly is not too shabby by MS standards.