X11 and its network transparency, if required, can be run under wayland. You will lose NOTHING.
Wayland doesn't make sense if all applications continue to be written for X. Therefore I expect applications written to support Wayland instead of X. Those applications will not work over the network. Without Wayland, those applications likely would have used X. Therefore I will lose those future applications.
No, it's not a tautology. It's trying to make clear that the question is strictly meaningless. Network transparency of the display is not a feature for a specific app. There's no GUI app which I could say I never want to run remotely (with the obvious exception that there are apps which I don't intend to run at all, neither locally nor remotely).
OK, I'll give you some examples:
I want to edit a file which is located on another computer. Yes, there are other ways you can do it, but if the network is fast enough, the easiest way is to just start the editor (or the word processor, or the image editing program, etc.) on the computer where the file sits.
Someone already gave the example of Mathematica. Besides the fact that another computer may be faster and/or have more memory than mine (but that's actually less critical with Mathematica due to its Frontend/Kernel design, however it's still easier to just run the front end remotely; for a more monolithic program OTOH it's essential), there's also the issue that Mathematica licenses can be bound to certain IP addresses, and if you happen to sit on a computer which is not in the allowed IP range, you have to log into a computer which does have a licensed IP.
If the computer you are sitting on has no good sound, but another computer in the same room has good sound, you may log into the other computer in order to run the sound player there.
Note that I do not claim in any way completeness here. And no, those are not examples I just invented, those are examples of things I actually do or have done.
Any one which uses a GUI and which I want to run, for whatever reason, on a different computer than the one I'm sitting in front of. Needing network transparency for display is not a feature of the app. It's a feature of the work environment.
But will all their applications still be able to run on X? It doesn't help me if I can run X, but all the applications I use cannot use it.
Honestly, I wouldn't mind replacing X with something better. But something which doesn't provide network transparency is not better. And yes, it's a feature I frequently use.
You log in to the remote computer. To do so, you contact the ssh server on that remote machine. That remote machine then opens Mathematica (whose executable is possible served from yet another server, the file server, to which that computer is the client). Then Mathematica will contact a license server (possibly running on yet another computer) to check if you are allowed to run it, and the display server (which runs on the machine you're sitting on, because that machine has the resource it controls) to display it to you. So is the machine you contacted now server or client? Well, it is both: It acted as server in your ssh request, but it acted as client to the file server, the license server, and the display server.
The mistake is to equate "server" with "big machine". The server is always the one providing access to a resource (shell access, files, licenses, display, sound, web pages,...), and the client is always the one accessing that resource. For example, a web server provides access to a web page, and the client (your browser) accesses the web page. A file server provides access to files, and a client accesses the files. Now in your Mathematica example: Does Mathematica provide access to the display, or does it access it?
"Showing" isn't about the server or client. You can have a server-client connection without showing anything.
It's actually quite simple: The server controls a resource, and the client uses that resource through the server. For example the file server controls the files, and the clients connect to it to access them. The web server controls the web pages, and the web clients connect to it to access them. The sound server controls the sound device, and the clients connect to it to access them. And the display server controls the display, and the clients connect to it to use that display.
I guess the real reason for the confusion is that for many people, "server" means "big machine somewhere else". While the X server is on the possibly small machine in front of you.
They didn't hack Linux. They hacked the web application running on it. Even the best operating system cannot protect you from that. You don't complain about the car's safety if you manage to cut yourself with a knife while inside, do you?
The fault is with idiotic and greedy politicians that can't run a capitalist economy effectively, combined with the impact of the domino-like economic failures caused by the collapse of socialistic governments in Greece, Portugal, etc.
The first domino stones fell in the U.S., remember?
Re:Wow there are a lot of asterisks!
on
Linux Radio
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, one could easily mistake it for the Asterisk source code.
So you claim that a nicely abstracted UI (which is an implementation technique) is incompatible with an awesome user experience (which mainly depends on the UI design)?
I'm pretty sure the foreign companies had little influence. Ireland decided to take credits from the EU emergency fonds, and those credits come with conditions. In short: Ireland doesn't change due to the threat of US companies. Ireland changes due to the conditions of other EU countries.
Another thing they'll probably will have to change is the low taxes for companies. I'm pretty sure the companies didn't demand that.
Only if you open Slashdot with a long discussion. Really, it's the only page I'm visiting regularly which maxes one core out for an extended time. Well, at least now it's fast enough that I don't get a browser warning that a script takes too long (there was a time where Slashdot triggered that regularly).
I'm willing to bet that the average Slashdot troll is more technically qualified to judge the appropriateness of a patent application than 99% of patent lawyers.
How a Slashdot troll would examine the patent:
Claim 1: Isn't "First Post" - that's clearly innovative. Claim 2: I don't understand it. Must be insightful... err... innovative. Claim 3: Not "Profit!" - therefore innovative
Nice try with the analogy. Didn't work though. Ice boxes failed when the ice melted so it was an imperfect solution. A fridge however carries out its design task perfectly.
Unless you have a power failure. In that case, the ice box has an advantage.:-)
Another attack level could be if you already rooted an OS, and want to protect your root kit against reinstall. Someone already mentioned PXE boot, as well as option ROM. In short, as soon as the PC gets rebooted (which is required for a wipe/reinstall), you get complete control.
Slashdot Mirror
X11 and its network transparency, if required, can be run under wayland. You will lose NOTHING.
Wayland doesn't make sense if all applications continue to be written for X. Therefore I expect applications written to support Wayland instead of X. Those applications will not work over the network. Without Wayland, those applications likely would have used X. Therefore I will lose those future applications.
No, it's not a tautology. It's trying to make clear that the question is strictly meaningless. Network transparency of the display is not a feature for a specific app. There's no GUI app which I could say I never want to run remotely (with the obvious exception that there are apps which I don't intend to run at all, neither locally nor remotely).
OK, I'll give you some examples:
Note that I do not claim in any way completeness here. And no, those are not examples I just invented, those are examples of things I actually do or have done.
Any one which uses a GUI and which I want to run, for whatever reason, on a different computer than the one I'm sitting in front of.
Needing network transparency for display is not a feature of the app. It's a feature of the work environment.
But will all their applications still be able to run on X? It doesn't help me if I can run X, but all the applications I use cannot use it.
Honestly, I wouldn't mind replacing X with something better. But something which doesn't provide network transparency is not better. And yes, it's a feature I frequently use.
You log in to the remote computer. To do so, you contact the ssh server on that remote machine. That remote machine then opens Mathematica (whose executable is possible served from yet another server, the file server, to which that computer is the client). Then Mathematica will contact a license server (possibly running on yet another computer) to check if you are allowed to run it, and the display server (which runs on the machine you're sitting on, because that machine has the resource it controls) to display it to you. So is the machine you contacted now server or client? Well, it is both: It acted as server in your ssh request, but it acted as client to the file server, the license server, and the display server.
The mistake is to equate "server" with "big machine". The server is always the one providing access to a resource (shell access, files, licenses, display, sound, web pages, ...), and the client is always the one accessing that resource. For example, a web server provides access to a web page, and the client (your browser) accesses the web page. A file server provides access to files, and a client accesses the files. Now in your Mathematica example: Does Mathematica provide access to the display, or does it access it?
"Showing" isn't about the server or client. You can have a server-client connection without showing anything.
It's actually quite simple: The server controls a resource, and the client uses that resource through the server. For example the file server controls the files, and the clients connect to it to access them. The web server controls the web pages, and the web clients connect to it to access them. The sound server controls the sound device, and the clients connect to it to access them. And the display server controls the display, and the clients connect to it to use that display.
I guess the real reason for the confusion is that for many people, "server" means "big machine somewhere else". While the X server is on the possibly small machine in front of you.
However, if they are not careful they might get an antitrust law suite from Microsoft because Microsoft products don't show up any more ;-)
They didn't hack Linux. They hacked the web application running on it. Even the best operating system cannot protect you from that.
You don't complain about the car's safety if you manage to cut yourself with a knife while inside, do you?
The first domino stones fell in the U.S., remember?
Yeah, one could easily mistake it for the Asterisk source code.
So you claim that a nicely abstracted UI (which is an implementation technique) is incompatible with an awesome user experience (which mainly depends on the UI design)?
I don't think the UK currently would have the money for that.
I'm pretty sure the foreign companies had little influence. Ireland decided to take credits from the EU emergency fonds, and those credits come with conditions. In short: Ireland doesn't change due to the threat of US companies. Ireland changes due to the conditions of other EU countries.
Another thing they'll probably will have to change is the low taxes for companies. I'm pretty sure the companies didn't demand that.
You know, there's something called JavaScript.
Only if you open Slashdot with a long discussion. Really, it's the only page I'm visiting regularly which maxes one core out for an extended time.
Well, at least now it's fast enough that I don't get a browser warning that a script takes too long (there was a time where Slashdot triggered that regularly).
How a Slashdot troll would examine the patent:
Claim 1: Isn't "First Post" - that's clearly innovative. ... err ... innovative.
Claim 2: I don't understand it. Must be insightful
Claim 3: Not "Profit!" - therefore innovative
SCNR
Nice try with the analogy. Didn't work though. Ice boxes failed when the ice melted so it was an imperfect solution. A fridge however carries out its design task perfectly.
Unless you have a power failure. In that case, the ice box has an advantage. :-)
with unparalleled control over his refrigerator,
How much control does a fridge need?
Only serial control. You don't need parallel control, therefore they only support unparalleled support.
The computer must be terribly overclocked, judging from the big cooling system they added.
I guess the answered: "Password?"
Another attack level could be if you already rooted an OS, and want to protect your root kit against reinstall. Someone already mentioned PXE boot, as well as option ROM. In short, as soon as the PC gets rebooted (which is required for a wipe/reinstall), you get complete control.
I'm sure the soul of any politician is small enough to be stolen with even the dinkiest camera phone.
Nothing to steal here, move along.
No, but they think that journalists steal souls anyway, even without a DSLR, so for them the DSLR doesn't make a difference.
Well, maybe just found your own newspaper "Tourist's News" and give every tourist to Kuwait journalist status on request.
In Kuwait, it is forbidden to snow. And as I hear, the weather respects that law. :-)