So....I wonder if we knew "all" of pi, it could be used to represent all the data in the universe. The we'd just need the pointers to pick bits of data out of it. cool...
Basic question on RDP: can it support sending only one window instead of a desktop? I seem to remember hearing it could, but haven't ran across how to do it without involving Citrix or some other software...
So, Wayland will allow running Wayland apps on a machine with no display and sending the output to a machine with a display? If it does, then I'm more interested. Everything I read so far says it will not be able to do that, or will require some kind of dummy Wayland desktop to be running on the same machine with the app...
No it doesn't. no it's not. No it's not, no it's not. And, no it can't. (all you are solving is half of what X11 can do: running a remote app on a local screen. The other half is missing.)
using caps since no one seems to get it no matter how it's worded...sign of frustration at the reading incomprehension of lots of posters
X11 will still be around for those who need it.
Not if Wayland replaces Xorg, which seems to be the goal of the project. IF someone, anyone, can tell me I will be able to run a "Wayland app" from one machine to another screen, then fine. Haven't heard that yet. I've been told that you can do this, but the answer always involves thigns that trick the app in displaying to something that can be copied over the network like I deal with in Windows. This is not the funtionality I have now and which I don't want to give up.
X11's networking relies on bandwidth being relatively low compared to latency (lots of connections with small amounts of data) whereas stuff like VNC/RDP relies on the fact that modern internet connections have relatively high latency compared to bandwidth (one connection per refresh with large amounts of data).
If Wayland integrates the kind of precise screen update notifications required by VNC/RDP-like mechanisms, they just may be able to outperform both X11 and current VNC/RDP. In fact they should be able to do so while remaining compatible with VNC/RDP.
If VNC/RDP is you answer to what X11 does, you don't know what X11 does. X11 network function is much better and more useful than those kinds of remote access. I use both everyday and I can tell you X11 remote display is easier, better designed and will only be more useful (given proliferation of screens to display on like phones, tablets, TV's) as time goes on. Do I wish X11 was more effieicient? yes. Does Wayland offer the function I need? No. So, I'll stick to X11 as long as Wayland doesn't cause X11 to go away, and I hope Wayland goes away just because of the threat it poses in making X11 go away.
few != not important
a small percentage of people in the US ever use 911...so get rid of it?
and for all those who say X11 is crufty and has lots of bad code in it: YES! but, don't mix/confuse the implementation with the feature. It's the feature that is important, the X11 implementation needs some work, but it functions fine now AND NO OTHER REPLACEMENT WINDOW SYSTEM IS OFFERING IT!
"FOSS operating systems aren't going to fix that problem. Even RHEL WS, CENTOS, SLED, and Ubuntu LTS make you upgrade sooner than 10 years. I suppose you could pay out the wazoo to get someone to fork them and backport patches forever, but that's a losing game too. A better phrasing might be"
On this, I've always been curious: Wouldn't your average company pay through the wazoo (to a third party or in IT budget) if it meant they could keep their old apps, infrastructure and the same look and feel for their users? I always think it's the same money either way: pay MS as opposed to pay for the code maintenance, but it's all theory to me since I know of no concrete facts to say it is the same.
Would someone PLEASE run an ad campaign that uses this to push open source? This is one of the main reasons source code should come with the software you buy: you're not tied to one vendor. (and no, I don't think the source should be in the wild/public in every case...but the source should be part of you get when you put down money)
I'm always disappointed that someone doesn't put out a matching message to business when MS pushes this: "you know how MS is pushing you to mess with all your PC's again? If you had the code along with the software, you could hire another company to keep XP running/patched for you"
Just always seems like a missed opportunity...
which assumes the next-layer-up universe running the sim has comparable limits we can trigger...
but point was more, when the sim we live it hits any snag from the point of view of those running it, it can just be stopped until a work-around is found...and may have happened continuously since the beginning of the run...we wouldn't be able to tell. Darwinism kinda thinking tends to make me think, any way to break it has already happened and we're living the patched results (i.e. we're the results of the successful version of code). Also useful to consider we may not be in the best simulator...for all we know we're in some script kiddies broken down PC as a lark...working as hard as we can to hit a a limit may not get us much:)
This comment I see a lot and don't understand. Why is that bad in and of itself? a committee or other kind of group of people is better how exactly? What makes a country so special?
The UN is an organization that lets governments of countries work out how to get along in the world...not the people of those countries, the governments. To me that's the import point and problem. The UN deals with the governments, not the people...so letting the UN make decisions is letting the governments (elected , tyrant, whatever) decide how the internet would work, not the people who actually want to use and benefit from it.
the US may have a lot of problems (and getting worse) but at least it tries to put a face forward locally and globally that it's people have control and other countries people should have control. That is becoming more and more PR than reality, but many countries who are pushing for UN control do not even try to look like that...
to me, the better solution than the UN is find the country with the best record at not putting the governments needs and wants in front of it's people...that may or may not be the US, but the US at least lets it work for now. Maybe just move ownership of internet operations between several countries who fit the bill on a rota? The UN just doesn't seem like the way to preserve the freedom of use we have now...
if someone else sets up the node for you, you at least have a choice of who to pick to do it....kinda like how email works : I don't run my own email server, I let my ISP do it for me. If they don't do a good job, dump 'em and get a new email address
Easiest to change.
not adding software or anything, but if I don't like how something works , Slackware is still easiest (at least for me) to figure out how to alter to do what I want...be it automating something at start-up, to changing how X works, to moving something or changing layout, I'm more likely to be able to manage what ever weird idea I have for my PC in Slackware than other distros. Slack has everything put together with screws and bolts instead of welds. When I'm done changing something in Slackware, I have less chance of breaking something (or at least better chance of fixing what I messed up).
how about an add-on to that that took one cookie and returned it for every user, so that one (fake) user was the one clicking on everything? shouldn't be too hard to capture one cookie and provide it as a free download to the browser extension for everyone using it:)
My first thought when I saw the post was: "bean counters strike again: Look at the wasted resources that aren't used all the time!"
having extra capacity to handle peak usage is not waste. Never will be. Making sure the extra capacity is efficient is another question, maybe the article linked talks about that, but I always get riled up when someone sees idle capacity and calls it waste.
I've always (well, not always, took me a few tries to "get it") thought it made sense:
c is not a speed in itself, it's the variable standing for the fastest something can go flat out...but light should be hitting that due to the no-mass thing (no mass, so it has nothing to slow it down), so c is light speed is c....
anyway, for the universe to work, that is be consistent to all observers( be they people, flowers or just rocks that bump into each other), then the speed something can have traveled has to be limited to that same "flat out" speed....to "adjust" everything to work right, the time flow is what gets changed....hence the relative part. your time frame is "adjusted" to make it work since that's what keep things consistent. otherwise you get into some real trouble when two observers measure the same thing and get different answers...who's right? eliminate (thought experiments, we're allowed to do this in those) measurement error and such and two different measurements of the same object or sequence of events where both are accurate gives you a universe where there are multiple truths.....
OK, no more caffeine for me late at night....time to start drinking something else...
Slashdot Mirror
So....I wonder if we knew "all" of pi, it could be used to represent all the data in the universe. The we'd just need the pointers to pick bits of data out of it. cool...
Basic question on RDP: can it support sending only one window instead of a desktop? I seem to remember hearing it could, but haven't ran across how to do it without involving Citrix or some other software...
So, Wayland will allow running Wayland apps on a machine with no display and sending the output to a machine with a display? If it does, then I'm more interested. Everything I read so far says it will not be able to do that, or will require some kind of dummy Wayland desktop to be running on the same machine with the app...
2. Linux desktop is hacked together from thousands of seperate pices of software. That it works out of the box at all is an achievement.
Or a sign of a good design, Just a thought...
How does the implementation reflect on my comment? Not disagreeing, just honestly wondering how your comment relates to mine...
No it doesn't. no it's not. No it's not, no it's not. And, no it can't. (all you are solving is half of what X11 can do: running a remote app on a local screen. The other half is missing.)
People claiming vnc/RDP functionality is the same as X11 remote display/network transparency are extremely uninformed.
Ah yes, yesterday was CAPS-LOCK DAY.
using caps since no one seems to get it no matter how it's worded...sign of frustration at the reading incomprehension of lots of posters
X11 will still be around for those who need it.
Not if Wayland replaces Xorg, which seems to be the goal of the project. IF someone, anyone, can tell me I will be able to run a "Wayland app" from one machine to another screen, then fine. Haven't heard that yet. I've been told that you can do this, but the answer always involves thigns that trick the app in displaying to something that can be copied over the network like I deal with in Windows. This is not the funtionality I have now and which I don't want to give up.
X11's networking relies on bandwidth being relatively low compared to latency (lots of connections with small amounts of data) whereas stuff like VNC/RDP relies on the fact that modern internet connections have relatively high latency compared to bandwidth (one connection per refresh with large amounts of data). If Wayland integrates the kind of precise screen update notifications required by VNC/RDP-like mechanisms, they just may be able to outperform both X11 and current VNC/RDP. In fact they should be able to do so while remaining compatible with VNC/RDP.
If VNC/RDP is you answer to what X11 does, you don't know what X11 does. X11 network function is much better and more useful than those kinds of remote access. I use both everyday and I can tell you X11 remote display is easier, better designed and will only be more useful (given proliferation of screens to display on like phones, tablets, TV's) as time goes on. Do I wish X11 was more effieicient? yes. Does Wayland offer the function I need? No. So, I'll stick to X11 as long as Wayland doesn't cause X11 to go away, and I hope Wayland goes away just because of the threat it poses in making X11 go away.
few != not important
a small percentage of people in the US ever use 911...so get rid of it?
and for all those who say X11 is crufty and has lots of bad code in it: YES! but, don't mix/confuse the implementation with the feature. It's the feature that is important, the X11 implementation needs some work, but it functions fine now AND NO OTHER REPLACEMENT WINDOW SYSTEM IS OFFERING IT!
A)
no question. I use the code, they make it. car analogy: who understands a car better (what it should do and how): the engineer or the driver?
"FOSS operating systems aren't going to fix that problem. Even RHEL WS, CENTOS, SLED, and Ubuntu LTS make you upgrade sooner than 10 years. I suppose you could pay out the wazoo to get someone to fork them and backport patches forever, but that's a losing game too. A better phrasing might be"
On this, I've always been curious: Wouldn't your average company pay through the wazoo (to a third party or in IT budget) if it meant they could keep their old apps, infrastructure and the same look and feel for their users? I always think it's the same money either way: pay MS as opposed to pay for the code maintenance, but it's all theory to me since I know of no concrete facts to say it is the same.
Would someone PLEASE run an ad campaign that uses this to push open source? This is one of the main reasons source code should come with the software you buy: you're not tied to one vendor. (and no, I don't think the source should be in the wild/public in every case...but the source should be part of you get when you put down money)
I'm always disappointed that someone doesn't put out a matching message to business when MS pushes this: "you know how MS is pushing you to mess with all your PC's again? If you had the code along with the software, you could hire another company to keep XP running/patched for you"
Just always seems like a missed opportunity...
which assumes the next-layer-up universe running the sim has comparable limits we can trigger... :)
but point was more, when the sim we live it hits any snag from the point of view of those running it, it can just be stopped until a work-around is found...and may have happened continuously since the beginning of the run...we wouldn't be able to tell. Darwinism kinda thinking tends to make me think, any way to break it has already happened and we're living the patched results (i.e. we're the results of the successful version of code). Also useful to consider we may not be in the best simulator...for all we know we're in some script kiddies broken down PC as a lark...working as hard as we can to hit a a limit may not get us much
Or, they save state, halt, and we wait (unknowing as we are halted) until a hardware upgrade is affordable.
This comment I see a lot and don't understand. Why is that bad in and of itself? a committee or other kind of group of people is better how exactly? What makes a country so special?
The UN is an organization that lets governments of countries work out how to get along in the world...not the people of those countries, the governments. To me that's the import point and problem. The UN deals with the governments, not the people...so letting the UN make decisions is letting the governments (elected , tyrant, whatever) decide how the internet would work, not the people who actually want to use and benefit from it.
the US may have a lot of problems (and getting worse) but at least it tries to put a face forward locally and globally that it's people have control and other countries people should have control. That is becoming more and more PR than reality, but many countries who are pushing for UN control do not even try to look like that...
to me, the better solution than the UN is find the country with the best record at not putting the governments needs and wants in front of it's people...that may or may not be the US, but the US at least lets it work for now. Maybe just move ownership of internet operations between several countries who fit the bill on a rota? The UN just doesn't seem like the way to preserve the freedom of use we have now...
if someone else sets up the node for you, you at least have a choice of who to pick to do it....kinda like how email works : I don't run my own email server, I let my ISP do it for me. If they don't do a good job, dump 'em and get a new email address
Just put power lines on all the roads like bumper cars and trains do...unlimited range. problem solved.
Easiest to change.
not adding software or anything, but if I don't like how something works , Slackware is still easiest (at least for me) to figure out how to alter to do what I want...be it automating something at start-up, to changing how X works, to moving something or changing layout, I'm more likely to be able to manage what ever weird idea I have for my PC in Slackware than other distros. Slack has everything put together with screws and bolts instead of welds. When I'm done changing something in Slackware, I have less chance of breaking something (or at least better chance of fixing what I messed up).
just make a library of these crystals and then have the decoding info visible if you overlap them under a light....efficient in multiple dimensions...
how about an add-on to that that took one cookie and returned it for every user, so that one (fake) user was the one clicking on everything? shouldn't be too hard to capture one cookie and provide it as a free download to the browser extension for everyone using it :)
My first thought when I saw the post was: "bean counters strike again: Look at the wasted resources that aren't used all the time!"
having extra capacity to handle peak usage is not waste. Never will be. Making sure the extra capacity is efficient is another question, maybe the article linked talks about that, but I always get riled up when someone sees idle capacity and calls it waste.
well, robots don't need all the safety and environmental conditions humans do, so cheaper, right?
(joking BTW)
I've always (well, not always, took me a few tries to "get it") thought it made sense: c is not a speed in itself, it's the variable standing for the fastest something can go flat out...but light should be hitting that due to the no-mass thing (no mass, so it has nothing to slow it down), so c is light speed is c....
anyway, for the universe to work, that is be consistent to all observers( be they people, flowers or just rocks that bump into each other), then the speed something can have traveled has to be limited to that same "flat out" speed....to "adjust" everything to work right, the time flow is what gets changed....hence the relative part. your time frame is "adjusted" to make it work since that's what keep things consistent. otherwise you get into some real trouble when two observers measure the same thing and get different answers...who's right? eliminate (thought experiments, we're allowed to do this in those) measurement error and such and two different measurements of the same object or sequence of events where both are accurate gives you a universe where there are multiple truths.....
OK, no more caffeine for me late at night....time to start drinking something else...
So, How do I run a Wayland app remotely using X11?