If they dropped X11, then I can't share my device screen out. What exactly is the advantage of Sailfish over Android if it's just another isolated device like android?
the one thing that I always get worried about in topics like this: if we're getting rid of POTS, are we replacing it with something that has the same features? Or are we throwing away those feature because we don't know they are there? In just about every case of someone wanting to replace old with new, we loose features in the bargain. This will be no different.
The other point to keep in mind: the telephone companies are supporting this. That should wake you up: it means it benefits them and takes away from us. Always a good meter to measure this kind of stuff against: entrenched business loves it. be afraid...
Forget all the talk about whether malware uses it or not and how the infection happened...small computers exists all over the place with good mics and speakers: smart phones. This could be useful as yet another tool in the tool box for doing cool things with computers. If nothing else, I see a fun way to communicate on a plane when they tell you to turn off your transmitters.
Along those lines, I've wondered for a long time as generation after generation of console come out: why doesn't any game controllers use a trackball? is there durability concerns? other concerns? Anyone know why they skip this?
I've been a big trackball fan since my early days on computers. One of the nice things about them (besides just a preference for that kind of control) is it takes less desk space...desk rodents claim too much of my needed clutter space. Ever since the realization that game pads/controllers need NONE when you're using them (held by the hands) I've been disappointed that a controller doesn't use a trackball at some point....
Ah well
Well, the human already has to receive the server at the dock...so you take the labor you already can't get rid of and add a small task of plugging in a simple harness...then put the server in the datacenter "inbox" for the robots....
I'm picturing the harness piece fitting in as simple as take server out of shipping package (already needed) attach barcodes (needed in most cases already) and plug ethernet, power, etc. from back of box to some standard slot-in style connector that matches a connector in the rack (the "harness" add-on" that would be the new task) that takes about 5 minutes. Maybe I'm just under thinking what a harness would need to be.
not addressing if the whole automated DC would be cost effective, just commenting on how to make the cabling work for it in the simplest way I can think of.
Professor Ronald Rael, the head of the project, stated that these materials and the designs they enable will require new IP protections — 'This is going to require some IP protection for designs, so if you design architecture in the computer, you're protected, just as music and movies are.'
Isn't this the same complication that been hashed back and forth for source code on software for years now? Source code is the "design" or the instructions on how to build....the executable is created by automated builder called "compilers" and such....not a new problem just because it involves a 3D printer....
How about a wiring harness put on by humans? I mean, I can easily see that a robot is not going to take a server off the dock and slot it into a data center, so humans have to be involved at some level. so why not have a human take the equipment from the dock, manually put a standard harness on it, then hand it to the DataCenter robots to rack?
Haven't seen any updates beyond that each One comes with a Kinect now.
If Kinect is now required (games require it to play or the system errors if it's not plugged in) then it's a no-sale for me. Kinect is interesting tech, but not when hooked up to a MS owned box...especially one that is "always on and ready" .
I would think this would be nice for the office or desktop: your open docs and apps can be spread over the desktop, keep whatever you are updating or need high resolution for on the monitor. When you don't need the high res view anymore, drag the window onto the desktop and move something else form the desktop to the monitor.
Wayland's goal is to replace the X server on Linux with the Wayland system for a graphical windowing environment. That replacement concept is a big part of the 'hate'. Those of us that use the features and/or like the potential of X do not want to see it go away, and so resent the threat of getting it taken away. As far as FOSS being about choice, that's fine, but if Wayland pushes to get rid of choice, then that's a bit different. Wayland wants most if not all Linux apps to be written for Wayland eventually. Where's the choice there?
As far as the rest of the hate, a big part of that comes from Wayland implementing , from a technical standpoint, the kind of windowing environment that a lot of technical people know to be inferior to what we already have. I don't care how good the code is, if the code is doing something that's not worth doing, it's still a bad idea. same with the ease of writing for the new system: I don't care if it's easy as can be and super clean to write apps for it. If the window system isn't doing he right things, then not going to show any kind of support for it. "Hello World" written for the command line is easy and cleaner than a GUI, doesn't make it the best way to write apps.
I was wondering about 1)
Why DO cable companies pay for OTA content? What keeps the cable company from sticking an antenna up and just grabbing from the air? I know the fees are standard practice, but I actually started trying to think through what they are buying....and couldn't figure it out.
What I got from the video was that Apps are using X11 like VNC on a per window basis...not that X itself works like that. Their reasons may be good or bad, but X does not work that way in of itself.
I'm always curious about this attitude: how does being a developer make you an expert on something. Does someone who builds a highrise know everything about the building once it's full of people using it? How does that logic work?
I liked Daniel's video. It provided more detail about X than I've seen from any Wayland link so far and cleared up a lot about Wayland to finally get me interested in it's development. Daniel in particular is the first person I've seen talking about Wayland that I'm interested in listening to since he actually knows facts and can communicate them well as well as have a great attitude about what he's doing
That said, and I know I'm biased in favor of X, I'm very disappointed in the solution to all the problems in X11 that he detailed. Due to issues with how X handles it's job, the solution has been for years to let the client fix it at their end and use very little of X. Avoid fixing X. The Wayland solution sounds like take that work around and build a new display around it. Not encouraging.
From his description I agree: the X11 code cannot be fixed. But, my impression is that as coders/developers they applied a coders take to the problem and came up with a coders solution: Take the code written app-side as a work around and build a design on it. Reverse engineer a design based on code that exists. That sounds really negative and I know that will raise some bile, especially since the standard answer is "if you think they are wrong, code it yourself". Based on that video, there's no way I could code at his level so there's no ground for me to stand on there.
What makes me comment on this topic is that I like the X11 design/architecture and feel strongly it is more useful now than the alternatives (RDP/VNC/etc.) and will be more useful as time goes on. I would like a designers solution in that fix the design, then work towards getting that design coded. From the sound of things, that would mean dumping backwards compatibility with X11 protocol, but I would still rather loose X to a better design than loose it to what I see in the Wayland design. Unfortunately those who would be able to handle that kind of development look to be focused elsewhere...
Or working from their large expensive homes with government purchased expensive teleconference equipment connected through government purchased custom private lines to government purchased electronic conference rooms and telepresence equipment.
Hey, they had their backups setup....just switch some terms around and you can see how they actually DID have backups like they claim. sync happened every 20 minutes....so they kept multiple copies of one backup that was overwritten every 20 minutes. So, their window to detect and fix the issue before overwriting the backup is 20 minutes. no problem, right? What could possibly go wrong? :)
is this another example of the common mistake?
on
Too Perfect a Mirror
·
· Score: 1
Do we have yet another case of someone who makes an IT related product thinking they are IT? The mistake highlighted by the article and a lot of the comments thinking version control = backup remind me of the many time some vendor tried to sell an IT product to a company while in my mind the whole time the developer or consultant are talking I keep yelling "you don't get IT, you are not IT, go talk to YOUR IT back at your company...you know, the guys that pull their hair out every time you trash your PC installing dev tool de jour"
developer != IT .
the filling station model is just wrong for full electric cars right now...I know it seems like a good idea to work up from the existing filling station infrastructure and fill in gaps with more of the same, but over and over we need a new infrastructure model to deal with limits on storage...not charging stations like filling station....power while moving is the trick. A new infrastructure. Keep the battery in the car for making the system easier to put together (not having to constantly power the car, but not relying on the battery to get you all the way to a filling/charging station). Overhead power lines, buried inductive cables, something. Bonus points if you paint chevrons on the powered part of the road to look like turbo boosts in the old driving games.
And I wish every single Wayland proponent would UNDERSTAND the features they say we don't use and we don't need before complaining about those of us that are concerned about loosing a vital feature of our interface. So far, I have not seen any comments from Wayland proponents on Slashdot at least and in none of the sites I've hit to learn about Wayland that show me that they do understand what the feature even is. Hence the constant pushback on Wayland's design.
I watched it, and I'm still not sold on Wayland. This is new info and gets 60-75% there, but it still drops things that X11 does today. Not theoretical stuff, but things actually used in real cases daily...
I'll give an example (even though it's been given multiple time) : you have a machine (server, appliance, corner or closet PC) with No display hardware on it. you run a GUI app on it and send it to the Monitor in front of you over the network. From that demo, with some more software added you might be able to do that eventually, but right now I don't see it as possible or planned.
The problem is even if they "do their job" how much can they do? Microsoft has the advantage of motherboard makers coming to THEM to get a key. On the other hand the Linux Foundation would have to seek out Motherboard makers large and small and convince them to add their key. It's not do-able to get all of them to agree even with unlimited time and energy.
The issue is, what keys come with the motherboard. for now, Microsoft guaranteed. So, the obvious short term solution (although problems like everyone has mentioned) is to ask nicely to use one of the keys that is already going to be on the board. Just not a long term solution, but at lest it lets us continue to have the option of booting Linux in some form without bypassing the boot security (as some have described it: without having to prepare, using MB maker's inconsistent and buggy tools and methods ). And booting demo/live disks relies on not preparing the MB before booting (at least for a lot of uses for live CD's)
Slashdot Mirror
If they dropped X11, then I can't share my device screen out. What exactly is the advantage of Sailfish over Android if it's just another isolated device like android?
the one thing that I always get worried about in topics like this: if we're getting rid of POTS, are we replacing it with something that has the same features? Or are we throwing away those feature because we don't know they are there? In just about every case of someone wanting to replace old with new, we loose features in the bargain. This will be no different.
The other point to keep in mind: the telephone companies are supporting this. That should wake you up: it means it benefits them and takes away from us. Always a good meter to measure this kind of stuff against: entrenched business loves it. be afraid...
Forget all the talk about whether malware uses it or not and how the infection happened...small computers exists all over the place with good mics and speakers: smart phones. This could be useful as yet another tool in the tool box for doing cool things with computers. If nothing else, I see a fun way to communicate on a plane when they tell you to turn off your transmitters.
Along those lines, I've wondered for a long time as generation after generation of console come out: why doesn't any game controllers use a trackball? is there durability concerns? other concerns? Anyone know why they skip this?
I've been a big trackball fan since my early days on computers. One of the nice things about them (besides just a preference for that kind of control) is it takes less desk space...desk rodents claim too much of my needed clutter space. Ever since the realization that game pads/controllers need NONE when you're using them (held by the hands) I've been disappointed that a controller doesn't use a trackball at some point....
Ah well
Quick run it on a Windows install disk!
Well, the human already has to receive the server at the dock...so you take the labor you already can't get rid of and add a small task of plugging in a simple harness...then put the server in the datacenter "inbox" for the robots....
I'm picturing the harness piece fitting in as simple as take server out of shipping package (already needed) attach barcodes (needed in most cases already) and plug ethernet, power, etc. from back of box to some standard slot-in style connector that matches a connector in the rack (the "harness" add-on" that would be the new task) that takes about 5 minutes. Maybe I'm just under thinking what a harness would need to be.
not addressing if the whole automated DC would be cost effective, just commenting on how to make the cabling work for it in the simplest way I can think of.
Professor Ronald Rael, the head of the project, stated that these materials and the designs they enable will require new IP protections — 'This is going to require some IP protection for designs, so if you design architecture in the computer, you're protected, just as music and movies are.'
Isn't this the same complication that been hashed back and forth for source code on software for years now? Source code is the "design" or the instructions on how to build....the executable is created by automated builder called "compilers" and such....not a new problem just because it involves a 3D printer....
How about a wiring harness put on by humans? I mean, I can easily see that a robot is not going to take a server off the dock and slot it into a data center, so humans have to be involved at some level. so why not have a human take the equipment from the dock, manually put a standard harness on it, then hand it to the DataCenter robots to rack?
Haven't seen any updates beyond that each One comes with a Kinect now.
If Kinect is now required (games require it to play or the system errors if it's not plugged in) then it's a no-sale for me. Kinect is interesting tech, but not when hooked up to a MS owned box...especially one that is "always on and ready" .
That's it, I'm just going to go back to talk....not Gtalk, just talk.
I would think this would be nice for the office or desktop: your open docs and apps can be spread over the desktop, keep whatever you are updating or need high resolution for on the monitor. When you don't need the high res view anymore, drag the window onto the desktop and move something else form the desktop to the monitor.
Wayland's goal is to replace the X server on Linux with the Wayland system for a graphical windowing environment. That replacement concept is a big part of the 'hate'. Those of us that use the features and/or like the potential of X do not want to see it go away, and so resent the threat of getting it taken away. As far as FOSS being about choice, that's fine, but if Wayland pushes to get rid of choice, then that's a bit different. Wayland wants most if not all Linux apps to be written for Wayland eventually. Where's the choice there?
As far as the rest of the hate, a big part of that comes from Wayland implementing , from a technical standpoint, the kind of windowing environment that a lot of technical people know to be inferior to what we already have. I don't care how good the code is, if the code is doing something that's not worth doing, it's still a bad idea. same with the ease of writing for the new system: I don't care if it's easy as can be and super clean to write apps for it. If the window system isn't doing he right things, then not going to show any kind of support for it. "Hello World" written for the command line is easy and cleaner than a GUI, doesn't make it the best way to write apps.
I was wondering about 1)
Why DO cable companies pay for OTA content? What keeps the cable company from sticking an antenna up and just grabbing from the air? I know the fees are standard practice, but I actually started trying to think through what they are buying....and couldn't figure it out.
What I got from the video was that Apps are using X11 like VNC on a per window basis...not that X itself works like that. Their reasons may be good or bad, but X does not work that way in of itself.
I'm always curious about this attitude: how does being a developer make you an expert on something. Does someone who builds a highrise know everything about the building once it's full of people using it? How does that logic work?
I liked Daniel's video. It provided more detail about X than I've seen from any Wayland link so far and cleared up a lot about Wayland to finally get me interested in it's development. Daniel in particular is the first person I've seen talking about Wayland that I'm interested in listening to since he actually knows facts and can communicate them well as well as have a great attitude about what he's doing
That said, and I know I'm biased in favor of X, I'm very disappointed in the solution to all the problems in X11 that he detailed. Due to issues with how X handles it's job, the solution has been for years to let the client fix it at their end and use very little of X. Avoid fixing X. The Wayland solution sounds like take that work around and build a new display around it. Not encouraging.
From his description I agree: the X11 code cannot be fixed. But, my impression is that as coders/developers they applied a coders take to the problem and came up with a coders solution: Take the code written app-side as a work around and build a design on it. Reverse engineer a design based on code that exists. That sounds really negative and I know that will raise some bile, especially since the standard answer is "if you think they are wrong, code it yourself". Based on that video, there's no way I could code at his level so there's no ground for me to stand on there.
What makes me comment on this topic is that I like the X11 design/architecture and feel strongly it is more useful now than the alternatives (RDP/VNC/etc.) and will be more useful as time goes on. I would like a designers solution in that fix the design, then work towards getting that design coded. From the sound of things, that would mean dumping backwards compatibility with X11 protocol, but I would still rather loose X to a better design than loose it to what I see in the Wayland design. Unfortunately those who would be able to handle that kind of development look to be focused elsewhere...
Or working from their large expensive homes with government purchased expensive teleconference equipment connected through government purchased custom private lines to government purchased electronic conference rooms and telepresence equipment.
Hey, they had their backups setup....just switch some terms around and you can see how they actually DID have backups like they claim. sync happened every 20 minutes....so they kept multiple copies of one backup that was overwritten every 20 minutes. So, their window to detect and fix the issue before overwriting the backup is 20 minutes. no problem, right? What could possibly go wrong?
:)
Do we have yet another case of someone who makes an IT related product thinking they are IT? The mistake highlighted by the article and a lot of the comments thinking version control = backup remind me of the many time some vendor tried to sell an IT product to a company while in my mind the whole time the developer or consultant are talking I keep yelling "you don't get IT, you are not IT, go talk to YOUR IT back at your company...you know, the guys that pull their hair out every time you trash your PC installing dev tool de jour"
developer != IT .
You mean like the centralized distribution of IP addresses?
the filling station model is just wrong for full electric cars right now...I know it seems like a good idea to work up from the existing filling station infrastructure and fill in gaps with more of the same, but over and over we need a new infrastructure model to deal with limits on storage...not charging stations like filling station....power while moving is the trick. A new infrastructure. Keep the battery in the car for making the system easier to put together (not having to constantly power the car, but not relying on the battery to get you all the way to a filling/charging station). Overhead power lines, buried inductive cables, something. Bonus points if you paint chevrons on the powered part of the road to look like turbo boosts in the old driving games.
And I wish every single Wayland proponent would UNDERSTAND the features they say we don't use and we don't need before complaining about those of us that are concerned about loosing a vital feature of our interface. So far, I have not seen any comments from Wayland proponents on Slashdot at least and in none of the sites I've hit to learn about Wayland that show me that they do understand what the feature even is. Hence the constant pushback on Wayland's design.
I watched it, and I'm still not sold on Wayland. This is new info and gets 60-75% there, but it still drops things that X11 does today. Not theoretical stuff, but things actually used in real cases daily...
I'll give an example (even though it's been given multiple time) : you have a machine (server, appliance, corner or closet PC) with No display hardware on it. you run a GUI app on it and send it to the Monitor in front of you over the network. From that demo, with some more software added you might be able to do that eventually, but right now I don't see it as possible or planned.
The problem is even if they "do their job" how much can they do? Microsoft has the advantage of motherboard makers coming to THEM to get a key. On the other hand the Linux Foundation would have to seek out Motherboard makers large and small and convince them to add their key. It's not do-able to get all of them to agree even with unlimited time and energy.
The issue is, what keys come with the motherboard. for now, Microsoft guaranteed. So, the obvious short term solution (although problems like everyone has mentioned) is to ask nicely to use one of the keys that is already going to be on the board. Just not a long term solution, but at lest it lets us continue to have the option of booting Linux in some form without bypassing the boot security (as some have described it: without having to prepare, using MB maker's inconsistent and buggy tools and methods ). And booting demo/live disks relies on not preparing the MB before booting (at least for a lot of uses for live CD's)
replacing an oil dip-stick with a digital gauge that shows a dip-stick image.