What's interesting there is we say it reflects reality because it makes the calculations easier.
That really is the most interesting thing in this discussion. Essentially we are making a leap of faith, that simpler models are more likely to be true as long as they continue to support the data and allow us to make predictions. But it is at root an aesthetic judgement: beauty is truth, and truth is beautiful. It is the essence of rationality.
It's cool to see how Feynman's diagrams may be like the epicycles of the earth-centered view of the universe: they can be made to work as long as you keep refining the model, adding loops within loops within loops. But with this new breakthrough, all that can be thrown away for a much simpler model that leads to deeper insights. And those deeper insights are awe-inspiring: locality and unitarity as emergent phenomena.
X was so "ahead of its time" that its entire architecture was dumped in version 10 to give way to X11, and then it remained so far ahead of its time that to this day NextOS, MacOS, Android and Windows have yet to adopt a single thing from it, contrary to the rest of Unix most of which has made its way into those operating systems.
Mac OS X, Android and Windows are consumer operating systems, for which eye-candy UIs are considered more important than network transparency. Their remote connectivity needs are limited to accessing corporate Web, cloud, and IT services, not other peers on the network.
NeXT was a great OS that used Display Postscript as the rendering engine, but it was also wrapped in a networked desktop environment, NextStep, and used with X11 and NeWS as well (Sun's Network Extensible Window System). I did find NextStep and NeWS superior to X11 and it's a damn shame they didn't succeed (although NextStep evolved into OS X, and Applie did include a rootless X11 implementation with it until Mountain Lion).
As for other companies, there were entire industry consortiums dedicated to expanding X and Unix, such as X/Open and the Open Software Foundation: these included companies like AT&T, DEC, Unisys, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Sun, Prime, and Apollo.
And no, it was not designed to access resources from the desktop. It was mainly designed so that you could use a dumb terminal to access your server. When it became clear that was pie on the sky, instead of redesigning the turd, they just added layer upon layer of cruft, so you ended up with a dumb as doornails protocol running on a heavy weight, expensive "dumb" terminal.
The dumb terminal at that time was a VT100. X was designed to run on bitmapped displays. Although there were such bitmapped terminals available at the time, X mostly ran on engineering workstations. You didn't usually use it access a server (although you could); rather, other networked peers used it to display a UI on your local X display. I'm not sure why you think that is "pie in the sky" since it worked and continues to work rather well. Part of the reason for that was because the protocol was rich enough to transmit graphics primitives at a higher level than a bitmap. Nothing dumb about it.
Lastly the web browser has nothing to do with Unix. It is platform independent. The fact that you think the web==unix shows how little you know about deep OS architecture.
Don't be silly, I'm not conflating the Web with Unix. Sure, web browsers are supported by most computing platforms. But the web browser's roots in Unix go way back to NextStep and the beginnings of the Internet, at that time mostly Unix-based, and the web browser remains a central and crucial component of desktop Linux. My main point was that cleaning up web browser architecture would be vastly more useful and relevant than replacing a stable and functional part of Linux with something that is less useful, but prettier.
X is one of the few remaining *big* mistakes in Unix. It was designed with the wrong philosophy and overtaken by actual usage. Wayland is an effort to clean up and refactor the code.
X was ahead of its time and nothing ever caught up to it. It was designed around the idea that all the resources of the network should be seamlessly accessible from a single user's desktop, and embodied the old Internet ideal of ubiquitous peer-to-peer connectivity (still perfectly reasonable and incredibly useful on a secure LAN). Wayland is an effort to make it easier to develop eye-candy user interfaces for consumers and throw out any functionality that gets in the way of that goal. It's totally appropriate for mobile but unnecessary and counter-productive for the desktop.
If you want to talk about really big mistakes in Unix, and computing in general, take a look at the modern web browser and the development environment that it requires. Doing anything interesting on the web requires an unholy mix of technologies and infrastructure like JavaScript, PHP, HTML, XML, CSS, cookies, DOM, BOM and all the interfaces between them. What we really need is a Wayland for the Web, not a Wayland that destroys much of what is stable and functional in Unix.
Google CEO Page is worth 25 billion dollars and along with Brin owns enough voting shares to completely control the company. Mayer is worth 300 million. They have resources that you and I don't: the ability to hire the best lawyers in the world and media platforms that reach the majority of the people in the US and perhaps the world.
If they had any sense of responsibility, obligation, or patriotism they could fight this thing and have a good chance of winning.
Thanks for the info. I knew about RDP providing access to audio and printers but I didn't know that it supported seamless integration of remote apps into the local desktop. I'll have to check out xrdp.
Actually, what the clients are doing right now is assembling bitmaps, widgets, and font glyph assets into a pixmap on the client side, most likely without the benefits of GPU acceleration, and sending the result as an uncompressed pixmap over the wire to the X server, which hands it off to a compositor, which combines the pixmap with images from other applications and hands the result back to the X server.
Yes, I think you are right for the most part, especially with Gnome and GTK applications. It explains why the resource tab of gnome-system-monitor consumes over 1MB/sec of bandwidth on my LAN. It's a shame really since it could have been coded to be much more network efficient if it would just draw the damn lines on the server side instead of rendering them into a pixmap on the client side.
In general Gnome is extremely network unfriendly. I get tons of error messages on the console because Gnome applications feel so insecure when they can't connect to a Gnome desktop. They seem to work fine, but it's annoying.
Composited UIs are important for mobile because of the limited physical screen space; it gives additional information beyond the spatial dimensions of the viewing surface. And the lower overhead and simplicity of infrastructure such as DirectFB and Wayland are also essential for mobile. On the desktop, not so much: with enough screen space I can be happy and productive with a tiling window manager and completely opaque windows. That and network transparency in my opinion trumps any advantage that Wayland would have in terms of desktop environments.
The GPU acceleration issue is puzzling. I've experienced this -- if there is no monitor attached to a Linux machine, then the GPU drivers are not loaded. There's no good reason for that (it's not an issue on Solaris), and I've read that it can be worked around with a dongle and a resistor attached to the display port to make the driver think there's a monitor there.
If Wayland will support legacy X11 desktop applications the way you describe, then fine, I guess I'll get used to it. But it seems like a lot of work for not much benefit: work that could be more effective if applied to the mobile use case.
VNC is a pixel-based screen-scraping desktop replicator. I have never seen one that performs better than individual X11 clients over a fast LAN, and over the Internet it's even worse. Besides that, I already have a full X11 desktop running on my local machine, so I don't want another desktop environment intruding. I just want the individual clients to display on my existing X11 server's desktop. This is especially important when working with several remote hosts.
RDP is a little better in that it has some understanding of the higher-level desktop objects it is rendering. But it still functions as a complete desktop that really wants to take over your entire local desktop.
In the real world, the network transparency support features are not used, EVEN WHEN YOU ARE USING A REMOTE DISPLAY because it's easier and more effective to actually render on the remote machine and bang the interface, so that's exactly what every widget toolkit does.
I have three headless Linux machines and the only display I have is on my laptop. My remote X11 clients run on these machines and present their UIs on my local X11 display server running on my laptop. While it is probably true that these clients are not transmitting XDrawLine and XFillArc protocol elements to render their UIs, they are still mostly assembling pre-rendered bitmaps, widgets, and font glyph assets to send down the wire for rendering on the local server. How is this going to work on Wayland?
I keep reading that this will be supported through some backward-compatible protocol, but has anybody actually worked out the details of how existing X11 clients will migrate to this new protocol? My fear is that these clients will stop working with future versions of Linux and their replacements will not support network transparency.
Wayland has a real use case for mobile devices, but why make the same mistake as Microsoft by gratuitously trying to unify mobile with desktop? On a desktop, the only advantage to Wayland is that it facilitates implementing a pretty compositing desktop. This is a fad that is already starting to fade from fashion.
Not a Surface user, but I can't stand finger marks on the screen either, so I generally use a stylus when interacting with a tablet. The only problem is the pinch-zoom gesture. Somehow the thought of wielding two styluses like a pair of chopsticks isn't appealing to me.
It is exactly a fear of change. The people who use Yahoo Groups are older and have been using it for over a decade. Most older people have a greater resistance to change than younger people.
This reminds me of how car manufacturers are finally realizing that it's stupid to keep trying to market new cars to young people -- they're just not interested. It's the boomers who are still buying new cars, and it's much more effective to direct their marketing at that generation than the kids. Yahoo should try to understand who their users are and cater to their needs instead of the audience they wish they had.
So nerds, geeks, and dweebs do not rule the tech universe anymore, we are just along for the ride.
This.
The synergy between geek culture and the broader mainstream tech culture looks like it is coming to an end. We were there creating technology and products for other geeks, engineers, and scientists before the public knew what the heck we were doing. Then the marketers caught on to us and used our leadership positions to expand the market for technology to the broader public, and we got the benefits of that scaling in the form of cheaper, more powerful devices. Now we are diverging again, and the devices and technology we prefer will be relegated to a new, more expensive niche.
VNC and RDP are really slow screen replicators. Why would you use them if you have X11 running on your local machine with a Gigabit connection to your remote clients?
If you have a web browser like Chrome as your remote client, then it will certainly benefit from having access to the GPU, especially for highly composited web interfaces and 3D WebGL web applications.
Why do these newer small computers always seem to lack a serial port? Do you have to connect a physical keyboard and monitor to configure sshd before you can get in through the ethernet or wireless interfaces and run it headless? Or can you get console IO through the USB ports?
Related question: is GPU acceleration available without connecting a physical monitor? Some systems seem to require a dongle to fool the computer into thinking a monitor is attached before loading the drivers that provide access to the GPU.
I often wonder why companies like Google even bother fighting for our privacy, when people like you are happy to whine and complain about them without looking into the facts.
I would think that most people, after looking at the facts, would conclude that neither Google nor Microsoft have any real concern about fighting for their users' privacy. Do you not have any recollection of Eric Schmidt's famous quote, "If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place"?
Google and Microsoft are effectively in the same business as the NSA. The only reason to have any sympathy for them is that instead of competing against another business, they are competing against the US government, which basically nationalized their data collection mechanisms for their own purposes.
That's not my experience. I've been involved in two class action lawsuits, one against the old IDS investment company (now integrated into Ameriprise), and one against Smith Barney. They were basically shareholders who claimed that their brokers were ripping them off in various fees or misrepresenting their products. I didn't even know of these claims until I received letters from the lawyers. I filled out some forms and later was pleasantly surprised to receive over $600 from IDS and $500 from Smith Barney as a result of the lawyers winning their cases.
If corporations are really people, maybe they should take a look at the concept of civil disobedience.
What exactly would happen if Yahoo, Google, Apple, and Microsoft told the NSA to fuck off? There might be a few high-profile arrests. Internet services could be severely disrupted. But these companies have the greatest platform for expressing their views and fighting back since the beginning of history. Can you imagine the effect if Google dedicated their search portal to explaining what they were doing, why the Internet was suddenly broken, and urging ordinary people to flood Congress with demands to restore our civil rights?
These are huge public companies, but at least at Facebook and Google, most of the voting shares are controlled by the founders. They have almost complete control over their companies, and with that kind of power, they should perhaps consider exercising some responsibility.
Seriously, imagine how the engineers at Google must feel. They built this magnificent infrastructure for gathering personal information from their users and thought they were going to become the benevolent caretakers of the world's information, organizing it for the betterment of mankind and making a decent buck while doing so.
And in the end it was all taken from them by the US Government, along with the trust of their users.
My fantasy is that Mozilla will someday support something like the old Google Sharing Firefox add-on -- run a server that pools all your search requests, mixing your cookies with other users, and replacing your IP. This makes it look like you're running from an organization's NAT'ed local network, with no ability to track your real IP and identity. In addtion, Google Sharing would allow you connect to Google with HTTPS, so that the Google Sharing server can never know what you're searching for, while Google can't find out your identity.
The original Google Sharing was implemented by Moxie Marlinspike and was then taken over by Abine.com in some transaction that I don't understand. Since then Google Sharing has become very unstable and pretty much unusable, and Abine makes no mention of it on their web site. Anybody know what happened?
When I was working on this stuff at Sun 10 or so years ago we had high hopes for predictive tracking as the cure for latency sickness. We used linear and least squares interpolation through the last few head and controller positions and orientations and extrapolated the curves a few frames into the future. But it still had a number of disorienting effects due to intermittent errors in the prediction -- better in some cases then no prediction, but not good enough to enable it in the production code.
I think it's more likely that the latency problem will be solved by faster hardware and more accurate tracking then through predictive techniques, which will always be an approximation. 20ms is an awfully short amount of time to get accurate 6DOF information for both a head tracker and a controller, update the model, execute non-related behaviors, and provided two separate synchronized renderings of a complex world, but we'll get there eventually.
Slashdot Mirror
What's interesting there is we say it reflects reality because it makes the calculations easier.
That really is the most interesting thing in this discussion. Essentially we are making a leap of faith, that simpler models are more likely to be true as long as they continue to support the data and allow us to make predictions. But it is at root an aesthetic judgement: beauty is truth, and truth is beautiful. It is the essence of rationality.
It's cool to see how Feynman's diagrams may be like the epicycles of the earth-centered view of the universe: they can be made to work as long as you keep refining the model, adding loops within loops within loops. But with this new breakthrough, all that can be thrown away for a much simpler model that leads to deeper insights. And those deeper insights are awe-inspiring: locality and unitarity as emergent phenomena.
X was so "ahead of its time" that its entire architecture was dumped in version 10 to give way to X11, and then it remained so far ahead of its time that to this day NextOS, MacOS, Android and Windows have yet to adopt a single thing from it, contrary to the rest of Unix most of which has made its way into those operating systems.
Mac OS X, Android and Windows are consumer operating systems, for which eye-candy UIs are considered more important than network transparency. Their remote connectivity needs are limited to accessing corporate Web, cloud, and IT services, not other peers on the network.
NeXT was a great OS that used Display Postscript as the rendering engine, but it was also wrapped in a networked desktop environment, NextStep, and used with X11 and NeWS as well (Sun's Network Extensible Window System). I did find NextStep and NeWS superior to X11 and it's a damn shame they didn't succeed (although NextStep evolved into OS X, and Applie did include a rootless X11 implementation with it until Mountain Lion).
As for other companies, there were entire industry consortiums dedicated to expanding X and Unix, such as X/Open and the Open Software Foundation: these included companies like AT&T, DEC, Unisys, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Sun, Prime, and Apollo.
And no, it was not designed to access resources from the desktop. It was mainly designed so that you could use a dumb terminal to access your server. When it became clear that was pie on the sky, instead of redesigning the turd, they just added layer upon layer of cruft, so you ended up with a dumb as doornails protocol running on a heavy weight, expensive "dumb" terminal.
The dumb terminal at that time was a VT100. X was designed to run on bitmapped displays. Although there were such bitmapped terminals available at the time, X mostly ran on engineering workstations. You didn't usually use it access a server (although you could); rather, other networked peers used it to display a UI on your local X display. I'm not sure why you think that is "pie in the sky" since it worked and continues to work rather well. Part of the reason for that was because the protocol was rich enough to transmit graphics primitives at a higher level than a bitmap. Nothing dumb about it.
Lastly the web browser has nothing to do with Unix. It is platform independent. The fact that you think the web==unix shows how little you know about deep OS architecture.
Don't be silly, I'm not conflating the Web with Unix. Sure, web browsers are supported by most computing platforms. But the web browser's roots in Unix go way back to NextStep and the beginnings of the Internet, at that time mostly Unix-based, and the web browser remains a central and crucial component of desktop Linux. My main point was that cleaning up web browser architecture would be vastly more useful and relevant than replacing a stable and functional part of Linux with something that is less useful, but prettier.
X is one of the few remaining *big* mistakes in Unix. It was designed with the wrong philosophy and overtaken by actual usage. Wayland is an effort to clean up and refactor the code.
X was ahead of its time and nothing ever caught up to it. It was designed around the idea that all the resources of the network should be seamlessly accessible from a single user's desktop, and embodied the old Internet ideal of ubiquitous peer-to-peer connectivity (still perfectly reasonable and incredibly useful on a secure LAN). Wayland is an effort to make it easier to develop eye-candy user interfaces for consumers and throw out any functionality that gets in the way of that goal. It's totally appropriate for mobile but unnecessary and counter-productive for the desktop.
If you want to talk about really big mistakes in Unix, and computing in general, take a look at the modern web browser and the development environment that it requires. Doing anything interesting on the web requires an unholy mix of technologies and infrastructure like JavaScript, PHP, HTML, XML, CSS, cookies, DOM, BOM and all the interfaces between them. What we really need is a Wayland for the Web, not a Wayland that destroys much of what is stable and functional in Unix.
Google CEO Page is worth 25 billion dollars and along with Brin owns enough voting shares to completely control the company. Mayer is worth 300 million. They have resources that you and I don't: the ability to hire the best lawyers in the world and media platforms that reach the majority of the people in the US and perhaps the world.
If they had any sense of responsibility, obligation, or patriotism they could fight this thing and have a good chance of winning.
Thanks for the info. I knew about RDP providing access to audio and printers but I didn't know that it supported seamless integration of remote apps into the local desktop. I'll have to check out xrdp.
Actually, what the clients are doing right now is assembling bitmaps, widgets, and font glyph assets into a pixmap on the client side, most likely without the benefits of GPU acceleration, and sending the result as an uncompressed pixmap over the wire to the X server, which hands it off to a compositor, which combines the pixmap with images from other applications and hands the result back to the X server.
Yes, I think you are right for the most part, especially with Gnome and GTK applications. It explains why the resource tab of gnome-system-monitor consumes over 1MB/sec of bandwidth on my LAN. It's a shame really since it could have been coded to be much more network efficient if it would just draw the damn lines on the server side instead of rendering them into a pixmap on the client side.
In general Gnome is extremely network unfriendly. I get tons of error messages on the console because Gnome applications feel so insecure when they can't connect to a Gnome desktop. They seem to work fine, but it's annoying.
Composited UIs are important for mobile because of the limited physical screen space; it gives additional information beyond the spatial dimensions of the viewing surface. And the lower overhead and simplicity of infrastructure such as DirectFB and Wayland are also essential for mobile. On the desktop, not so much: with enough screen space I can be happy and productive with a tiling window manager and completely opaque windows. That and network transparency in my opinion trumps any advantage that Wayland would have in terms of desktop environments.
The GPU acceleration issue is puzzling. I've experienced this -- if there is no monitor attached to a Linux machine, then the GPU drivers are not loaded. There's no good reason for that (it's not an issue on Solaris), and I've read that it can be worked around with a dongle and a resistor attached to the display port to make the driver think there's a monitor there.
If Wayland will support legacy X11 desktop applications the way you describe, then fine, I guess I'll get used to it. But it seems like a lot of work for not much benefit: work that could be more effective if applied to the mobile use case.
VNC is a pixel-based screen-scraping desktop replicator. I have never seen one that performs better than individual X11 clients over a fast LAN, and over the Internet it's even worse. Besides that, I already have a full X11 desktop running on my local machine, so I don't want another desktop environment intruding. I just want the individual clients to display on my existing X11 server's desktop. This is especially important when working with several remote hosts.
RDP is a little better in that it has some understanding of the higher-level desktop objects it is rendering. But it still functions as a complete desktop that really wants to take over your entire local desktop.
In the real world, the network transparency support features are not used, EVEN WHEN YOU ARE USING A REMOTE DISPLAY because it's easier and more effective to actually render on the remote machine and bang the interface, so that's exactly what every widget toolkit does.
I have three headless Linux machines and the only display I have is on my laptop. My remote X11 clients run on these machines and present their UIs on my local X11 display server running on my laptop. While it is probably true that these clients are not transmitting XDrawLine and XFillArc protocol elements to render their UIs, they are still mostly assembling pre-rendered bitmaps, widgets, and font glyph assets to send down the wire for rendering on the local server. How is this going to work on Wayland?
I keep reading that this will be supported through some backward-compatible protocol, but has anybody actually worked out the details of how existing X11 clients will migrate to this new protocol? My fear is that these clients will stop working with future versions of Linux and their replacements will not support network transparency.
Wayland has a real use case for mobile devices, but why make the same mistake as Microsoft by gratuitously trying to unify mobile with desktop? On a desktop, the only advantage to Wayland is that it facilitates implementing a pretty compositing desktop. This is a fad that is already starting to fade from fashion.
Exactly. Intervening in Syria allows the US to engage in a proxy war against Iran. The chemical attack provides the opportunity to intervene.
Not a Surface user, but I can't stand finger marks on the screen either, so I generally use a stylus when interacting with a tablet. The only problem is the pinch-zoom gesture. Somehow the thought of wielding two styluses like a pair of chopsticks isn't appealing to me.
Now explain to me how it is not a fear of change?
It is exactly a fear of change. The people who use Yahoo Groups are older and have been using it for over a decade. Most older people have a greater resistance to change than younger people.
This reminds me of how car manufacturers are finally realizing that it's stupid to keep trying to market new cars to young people -- they're just not interested. It's the boomers who are still buying new cars, and it's much more effective to direct their marketing at that generation than the kids. Yahoo should try to understand who their users are and cater to their needs instead of the audience they wish they had.
So nerds, geeks, and dweebs do not rule the tech universe anymore, we are just along for the ride.
This.
The synergy between geek culture and the broader mainstream tech culture looks like it is coming to an end. We were there creating technology and products for other geeks, engineers, and scientists before the public knew what the heck we were doing. Then the marketers caught on to us and used our leadership positions to expand the market for technology to the broader public, and we got the benefits of that scaling in the form of cheaper, more powerful devices. Now we are diverging again, and the devices and technology we prefer will be relegated to a new, more expensive niche.
VNC and RDP are really slow screen replicators. Why would you use them if you have X11 running on your local machine with a Gigabit connection to your remote clients?
If you have a web browser like Chrome as your remote client, then it will certainly benefit from having access to the GPU, especially for highly composited web interfaces and 3D WebGL web applications.
Anytime you have a remote client that needs or could benefit from graphics acceleration. Chrome, OpenGL applications, VirtualGL. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VirtualGL, http://blog.macminicolo.net/post/33839671756/build-a-dummy-dongle-for-a-headless-mac-mini.
Dang, replying to my own post here... just a little research revealed that you can get console IO through the USB ports: http://www.solid-run.com/mw/index.php?title=CuBox_serial_port
Still haven't found anything about GPU acceleration in a headless setup.
Why do these newer small computers always seem to lack a serial port? Do you have to connect a physical keyboard and monitor to configure sshd before you can get in through the ethernet or wireless interfaces and run it headless? Or can you get console IO through the USB ports?
Related question: is GPU acceleration available without connecting a physical monitor? Some systems seem to require a dongle to fool the computer into thinking a monitor is attached before loading the drivers that provide access to the GPU.
I often wonder why companies like Google even bother fighting for our privacy, when people like you are happy to whine and complain about them without looking into the facts.
I would think that most people, after looking at the facts, would conclude that neither Google nor Microsoft have any real concern about fighting for their users' privacy. Do you not have any recollection of Eric Schmidt's famous quote, "If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place"?
Google and Microsoft are effectively in the same business as the NSA. The only reason to have any sympathy for them is that instead of competing against another business, they are competing against the US government, which basically nationalized their data collection mechanisms for their own purposes.
And to top it off, Larry Ellison's Oracle team has been caught cheating... http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/26/us-sailing-americascup-cheating-idUSBRE97P0LD20130826
Ellison is real piece of work.
That's not my experience. I've been involved in two class action lawsuits, one against the old IDS investment company (now integrated into Ameriprise), and one against Smith Barney. They were basically shareholders who claimed that their brokers were ripping them off in various fees or misrepresenting their products. I didn't even know of these claims until I received letters from the lawyers. I filled out some forms and later was pleasantly surprised to receive over $600 from IDS and $500 from Smith Barney as a result of the lawyers winning their cases.
The ridiculous love store and accompanying saccharine soundtrack unfortunately was standard Disney fare. Turned it off after 30 minutes.
If corporations are really people, maybe they should take a look at the concept of civil disobedience.
What exactly would happen if Yahoo, Google, Apple, and Microsoft told the NSA to fuck off? There might be a few high-profile arrests. Internet services could be severely disrupted. But these companies have the greatest platform for expressing their views and fighting back since the beginning of history. Can you imagine the effect if Google dedicated their search portal to explaining what they were doing, why the Internet was suddenly broken, and urging ordinary people to flood Congress with demands to restore our civil rights?
These are huge public companies, but at least at Facebook and Google, most of the voting shares are controlled by the founders. They have almost complete control over their companies, and with that kind of power, they should perhaps consider exercising some responsibility.
Seriously, imagine how the engineers at Google must feel. They built this magnificent infrastructure for gathering personal information from their users and thought they were going to become the benevolent caretakers of the world's information, organizing it for the betterment of mankind and making a decent buck while doing so.
And in the end it was all taken from them by the US Government, along with the trust of their users.
My fantasy is that Mozilla will someday support something like the old Google Sharing Firefox add-on -- run a server that pools all your search requests, mixing your cookies with other users, and replacing your IP. This makes it look like you're running from an organization's NAT'ed local network, with no ability to track your real IP and identity. In addtion, Google Sharing would allow you connect to Google with HTTPS, so that the Google Sharing server can never know what you're searching for, while Google can't find out your identity.
The original Google Sharing was implemented by Moxie Marlinspike and was then taken over by Abine.com in some transaction that I don't understand. Since then Google Sharing has become very unstable and pretty much unusable, and Abine makes no mention of it on their web site. Anybody know what happened?
Thanks for highlighting that link. I just contributed. It's time for slashdotters to put their money where their mouths are.
When I was working on this stuff at Sun 10 or so years ago we had high hopes for predictive tracking as the cure for latency sickness. We used linear and least squares interpolation through the last few head and controller positions and orientations and extrapolated the curves a few frames into the future. But it still had a number of disorienting effects due to intermittent errors in the prediction -- better in some cases then no prediction, but not good enough to enable it in the production code.
I think it's more likely that the latency problem will be solved by faster hardware and more accurate tracking then through predictive techniques, which will always be an approximation. 20ms is an awfully short amount of time to get accurate 6DOF information for both a head tracker and a controller, update the model, execute non-related behaviors, and provided two separate synchronized renderings of a complex world, but we'll get there eventually.