According to Daniel Stone it was about avoiding the tearing in X and software compatibility could just go jump. The funny thing is we are getting a lot of what he didn't care about (very good software compatibility with the newer qt, gtk and enlightenment stuff) but it still doesn't handle the former as well as X. Anyway, give it time - it's already better in a lot of ways than was originally proposed.
Congrats, so you've got one remote desktop just like running VNC like it's 1999! It's a start, but a lot of people who use X to run applications remotely wish to run things from more than one host.
If this was really the killer feature that everyone requires
It's already available in one project so why would the people who want it go and work on another project where people are actively hostile to those who request the feature?
Wayland first came out it was like the world will end
Initially Wayland had some stated goals that are different to what they have now. Linux only, no choice of window manager, no ability to run existing applications, no remote access and a few others (single monitor only and run multiple copies of Wayland for each screen?) where policy has changed since. The early policies and the "X sux" hype campaign to provide some sort of unneeded extra justification for the project seemed to annoy a few people. The amount of "X sux" misinformation certainly annoyed me.
For the millionth time, no X11 applications use X11 drawing primitives, and schlepping bitmaps will work just as well under Wayland as X11.
Repeating something completely incorrect a million times does not make it correct. The Wayland advocates with a clue make sure they carefully say no "modern" X11 applications use X11 drawing primitives so that they can use some badly broken Gnome3 applications as their example. You've left the "modern" weasel word off your claim so that makes it incorrect.
Or X was so horrible you needed an X Window Manager
It was designed to be modular like that. Just imagine what linux would be like if there was no choice other than to use gnome3. I do not think it would be a popular.
You mean the one where he "forgot his cables", at a conference where he could have borrowed some from one of the 2000+ attendees? Also note how he used the dog-slow gnome3 version of "gedit" as his "proof" that X is slow. Finally, take not that the context is about tablets, phones etc and not desktop systems. He had trouble with X on a phone display.
X remoting was always a good-sounding idea that was implemented in a way that made it not much more efficient in practice than VNC-type remoting
You are considering the one to one case instead of the one to many, and crippling the one to one case to boot with something like gnome3 that sends bitmaps all over the place instead of doing it properly. Typically people using X remotely are using it for more than just logging into one host and running one application, and typically they are running software that doesn't require an accelerated 3D card just to run reasonably even on the local machine (lazy gnome3 devs I'm talking about you).
So if you are logging into one machine to run the current "gedit", it's not going to be much faster using X than x11vnc with all the acceleration options turned on. If you are running an older "gedit", or another application that doesn't use gtk3 or similar and/or want to run things from multiple hosts, then VNC is going to look very slow and clunky in comparison just due to the different way of doing things. Events and not spamming the place with bitmaps (unless it has to fall back to doing so with broken software like gnome3).
But somehow I don't think remoting via X Windows would be any less awful
It would be nice if the people discussing this would actually try it.
If you have stuff with heavy requirements that you need to run on a cluster or high end server then you may as well run a word processor or anything else you need on the same thing. It's about easy of use, and unless you have a shitty line or shitty software it runs just as well as if it was on the workstation or PC in front of the user.
But how could you possibly find a use case
Use case - if that's where the files are then it makes perfect sense. If the files are large then the graphical information presented on your screen when editing a portion of them uses a lot less bandwith than waiting to download the file, editing it locally, than uploading it again.
The short answer as to why it all used to work perfectly and now does not is Gnome3, what they did to gtk and how much stuff is now using gtk. All the stuff you used back in the day and well written software now will work just as well as it used to.
I'm not sure about that. It's somewhat akin to the argument about electric cars and where the electricity comes from. Is your electric car "green" if the electricity to power it comes from coal?
If the entire object of the exercise is to cut down on smog in a city, then yes it is. Those coal fired plants have scrubbers, precipitators and exhaust out of very high stacks, so if they are located far enough away from the city streets it does solve the problem at hand.
If it's about carbon emissions instead of air pollution it's still a gain even after conversion losses.
If it's about "zero carbon" - well that's a different story and one that's going to take decades to get to.
So, when will there EVER be the requirement to store the entire days worth of electricity demand for the entire continental United States of America?
What are you hoping to achieve by using such an utterly ridiculous example? I really hate it when people decide that their politics demands that they try to trick people.
Why can't we talk about the shiny space age technology instead of deciding to attack it because it could be used for something "green". The attack is not being "conservative" kids - it's being a fucking luddite that a 1970s Republican would brand as an idiot getting in the way of progress.
It's a local pollution reduction thing. That's why it sometimes makes sense despite the difficulties. I can see California and China going for it for vehicles based entirely in cities. Not every truck is on long routes.
I'd say every city that has some sort of industrial chemical production is very close to being able to supply it already. Hydrogen gas is produced as a precursor for a lot of things.
Are you ever going to reply to my questions ex-submariner? What's the point of telling us you know all about the topic without dropping us a few hints?
I do not remember that detail but there were quite a few similarities between some things in the Stargate movie and Necroscope III (the source).
Here's an old newsgroup post:
As many of you know, one of my longest running pet peeves with the newsgroup has been the constant resurgence of the Necroscope Movie debate. I am (un)happy to say that I now have a new pet peeve. This one does not involve the newsgroup, but rather the film industry. I have begun noticing many movies with storylines very similar to some of Brian's finest works. A short list of these films would include Event Horizon, Stargate, Stargate-SG1, and more recently The Sixth Sense. Each of these movies has made some use of one or more of Brian's original ideas. Whether it is the Möbius Continuum in Event Horizon or the Egyptian/Alien gods of Stargate why doesn't anybody think to step up and give credit where credit is due? Furthermore, where do you draw the demilitarized zone between artistic license, an original idea, and a blatant rip-off?
While that doesn't actually prove anything it's an indication of an opinion among readers of the novels based on a perception of a range of similarities instead of just one or two similar ideas. I also have that opinion. The writers of Stargate may have arrived at those ideas without actually taking them wholesale from a novel with very wide distribution but I think it is more likely that the novel had a major influence. Since Lumley owes a lot to Stoker etc it's probably not a huge deal anyway.
I suppose I connected the two because the series was still coming out a book every year or so when the Stargate movie came out (so the first book with the gate would have been about five or six years before the movie release).
but I'm fairly sure that alien parasites is a not uncommon concept
That's true, but the way the vampires and Goa'uld were done did not seem so common at the time - it seemed like Lumley had a fairly new take on the vampire story to fit it into an SF context and Stargate took it and changed the name to ghouls instead. At least that's what it looked like at the time, and I'm not knocking Stargate since it appears that I must have watched everything with that name on it right from the excellent movie to the final series that found it's feet just in time to be cancelled. They appear to have taken the idea and put enough of a twist on it to make it their own (like they did with borrowing "greys" and making them Asgardians).
It's not about "faulty" it's about difficult, and no, I do not get them impression that "trust me" is enough. I know a fair bit about modern signal processing especially in the context of seismic data processing so what methods exactly are you talking about? Do you really think things have progressed to the point where submarines are entirely useless because they are trivial to find which is what you and so many others seem to be suggesting?
I'll put my money on Stargate owing a lot to Brian Lumley's "Necroscope" novels from the one where Russians open up a gate to the vampire world. The gate, aliens as parasites in human hosts and a few other bits.
It has very good moments but Hollywood decided to use it to shove the message of the week in your face in a not very subtle way so it's not entirely self-consistent. Like the Trek reboot it both relies on fans knowing far too much of the source material for the film to work properly alone and annoys those fans by changing major parts of the setting itself. It's full of "easter eggs" taken from the many movies and two TV series that pop up just to impress the fans but have nothing to do with the plot, so don't be annoyed that some things seem to have no reason to be in the movie. It's not really a spoiler, but one of the odd things they've changed with the setting is the main character gets her rank of Major changed to a name, and she gets to be the newbie in a group yet ordering them around as if she is a Major with plenty of experience. So sometimes she is and sometimes she isn't. It's stuck halfway between one story and another. It's still worth watching IMHO despite it's flaws but I don't think it's going to make anyone's "best" list.
This 2015 movie IMHO does everything in a better way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_Shell:_The_New_Movie While that is set after other films it makes sense alone and it's flashbacks go back to before the other films anyway.
I can't remember that, but I have been reading some stuff about the Gemini astronauts and they mentioned how many more stars they could see from orbit. Photos apparently don't do it justice and usually just show the bright stuff.
I get the impression that the director wanted all combat scenes to be some sort of parody instead of making sense. The book inspired an entire genre of piloted robot anime where even the worst made more sense than the combat in the Starship Troopers movie IMHO. Things such as "Knights of Sidonia" owe a lot to the Starship Troopers novel.
Slashdot Mirror
According to Daniel Stone it was about avoiding the tearing in X and software compatibility could just go jump.
The funny thing is we are getting a lot of what he didn't care about (very good software compatibility with the newer qt, gtk and enlightenment stuff) but it still doesn't handle the former as well as X.
Anyway, give it time - it's already better in a lot of ways than was originally proposed.
Congrats, so you've got one remote desktop just like running VNC like it's 1999!
It's a start, but a lot of people who use X to run applications remotely wish to run things from more than one host.
It's already available in one project so why would the people who want it go and work on another project where people are actively hostile to those who request the feature?
Initially Wayland had some stated goals that are different to what they have now. Linux only, no choice of window manager, no ability to run existing applications, no remote access and a few others (single monitor only and run multiple copies of Wayland for each screen?) where policy has changed since. The early policies and the "X sux" hype campaign to provide some sort of unneeded extra justification for the project seemed to annoy a few people. The amount of "X sux" misinformation certainly annoyed me.
Repeating something completely incorrect a million times does not make it correct.
The Wayland advocates with a clue make sure they carefully say no "modern" X11 applications use X11 drawing primitives so that they can use some badly broken Gnome3 applications as their example. You've left the "modern" weasel word off your claim so that makes it incorrect.
It was designed to be modular like that.
Just imagine what linux would be like if there was no choice other than to use gnome3. I do not think it would be a popular.
You mean the one where he "forgot his cables", at a conference where he could have borrowed some from one of the 2000+ attendees?
Also note how he used the dog-slow gnome3 version of "gedit" as his "proof" that X is slow.
Finally, take not that the context is about tablets, phones etc and not desktop systems. He had trouble with X on a phone display.
You are considering the one to one case instead of the one to many, and crippling the one to one case to boot with something like gnome3 that sends bitmaps all over the place instead of doing it properly.
Typically people using X remotely are using it for more than just logging into one host and running one application, and typically they are running software that doesn't require an accelerated 3D card just to run reasonably even on the local machine (lazy gnome3 devs I'm talking about you).
So if you are logging into one machine to run the current "gedit", it's not going to be much faster using X than x11vnc with all the acceleration options turned on. If you are running an older "gedit", or another application that doesn't use gtk3 or similar and/or want to run things from multiple hosts, then VNC is going to look very slow and clunky in comparison just due to the different way of doing things. Events and not spamming the place with bitmaps (unless it has to fall back to doing so with broken software like gnome3).
It would be nice if the people discussing this would actually try it.
Use case - if that's where the files are then it makes perfect sense. If the files are large then the graphical information presented on your screen when editing a portion of them uses a lot less bandwith than waiting to download the file, editing it locally, than uploading it again.
The short answer as to why it all used to work perfectly and now does not is Gnome3, what they did to gtk and how much stuff is now using gtk.
All the stuff you used back in the day and well written software now will work just as well as it used to.
If the entire object of the exercise is to cut down on smog in a city, then yes it is. Those coal fired plants have scrubbers, precipitators and exhaust out of very high stacks, so if they are located far enough away from the city streets it does solve the problem at hand.
If it's about carbon emissions instead of air pollution it's still a gain even after conversion losses.
If it's about "zero carbon" - well that's a different story and one that's going to take decades to get to.
So, when will there EVER be the requirement to store the entire days worth of electricity demand for the entire continental United States of America?
What are you hoping to achieve by using such an utterly ridiculous example?
I really hate it when people decide that their politics demands that they try to trick people.
Why can't we talk about the shiny space age technology instead of deciding to attack it because it could be used for something "green". The attack is not being "conservative" kids - it's being a fucking luddite that a 1970s Republican would brand as an idiot getting in the way of progress.
It's a local pollution reduction thing. That's why it sometimes makes sense despite the difficulties.
I can see California and China going for it for vehicles based entirely in cities.
Not every truck is on long routes.
I'd say every city that has some sort of industrial chemical production is very close to being able to supply it already. Hydrogen gas is produced as a precursor for a lot of things.
Are you ever going to reply to my questions ex-submariner? What's the point of telling us you know all about the topic without dropping us a few hints?
Here's an old newsgroup post:
While that doesn't actually prove anything it's an indication of an opinion among readers of the novels based on a perception of a range of similarities instead of just one or two similar ideas.
I also have that opinion. The writers of Stargate may have arrived at those ideas without actually taking them wholesale from a novel with very wide distribution but I think it is more likely that the novel had a major influence.
Since Lumley owes a lot to Stoker etc it's probably not a huge deal anyway.
Necroscope III (the source) - 1989.
Stargate Movie - 1994.
Stargate Deep Space 9 - 1993
It takes quite a bit of time to make a movie (especially a CGI heavy one like Stargate in the 1990s) so I don't think it was inspired by Dax.
Then I have no idea why you jumped on this thread that started with me being critical of someone that suggested exactly that.
That's true, but the way the vampires and Goa'uld were done did not seem so common at the time - it seemed like Lumley had a fairly new take on the vampire story to fit it into an SF context and Stargate took it and changed the name to ghouls instead.
At least that's what it looked like at the time, and I'm not knocking Stargate since it appears that I must have watched everything with that name on it right from the excellent movie to the final series that found it's feet just in time to be cancelled. They appear to have taken the idea and put enough of a twist on it to make it their own (like they did with borrowing "greys" and making them Asgardians).
Why was the dingo in the courtroom?
To bring up evidence.
It's not about "faulty" it's about difficult, and no, I do not get them impression that "trust me" is enough. I know a fair bit about modern signal processing especially in the context of seismic data processing so what methods exactly are you talking about? Do you really think things have progressed to the point where submarines are entirely useless because they are trivial to find which is what you and so many others seem to be suggesting?
I'll put my money on Stargate owing a lot to Brian Lumley's "Necroscope" novels from the one where Russians open up a gate to the vampire world. The gate, aliens as parasites in human hosts and a few other bits.
It has very good moments but Hollywood decided to use it to shove the message of the week in your face in a not very subtle way so it's not entirely self-consistent.
Like the Trek reboot it both relies on fans knowing far too much of the source material for the film to work properly alone and annoys those fans by changing major parts of the setting itself. It's full of "easter eggs" taken from the many movies and two TV series that pop up just to impress the fans but have nothing to do with the plot, so don't be annoyed that some things seem to have no reason to be in the movie. It's not really a spoiler, but one of the odd things they've changed with the setting is the main character gets her rank of Major changed to a name, and she gets to be the newbie in a group yet ordering them around as if she is a Major with plenty of experience. So sometimes she is and sometimes she isn't. It's stuck halfway between one story and another.
It's still worth watching IMHO despite it's flaws but I don't think it's going to make anyone's "best" list.
This 2015 movie IMHO does everything in a better way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_Shell:_The_New_Movie
While that is set after other films it makes sense alone and it's flashbacks go back to before the other films anyway.
Just like "The Tempest" :)
It adds a lot onto that foundation however.
I can't remember that, but I have been reading some stuff about the Gemini astronauts and they mentioned how many more stars they could see from orbit. Photos apparently don't do it justice and usually just show the bright stuff.
I get the impression that the director wanted all combat scenes to be some sort of parody instead of making sense.
The book inspired an entire genre of piloted robot anime where even the worst made more sense than the combat in the Starship Troopers movie IMHO. Things such as "Knights of Sidonia" owe a lot to the Starship Troopers novel.
I think LOST owes more than just a little to Ubik.