We regularly demonize many classes of people and demote to non-human. Pedophiles. terrorists, monsters-du-jour, you name it. Before those is was gays, blacks, various ethnicities, you name it. Fashions come, fashions go.
Those two sets are distinct - the first group are people who have actively done something to harm others. The second set are simply groups of people that other groups of people dislike - nothing more than tribalism.
I'll be the first to say that the labels of pedophile and terrorist are way too broadly applied but misuse of labels is generally just a form of tribalism while correct use of labels is simply descriptive.
> Even if the feature set of Wayland were exactly the same as X
Hhhm. Just what part of "My problem is with a new system that does not even match the features of a 30+ year old system." leads you to believe your statement applies to my position? Don't be that guy man, don't be that guy.
Here's a challenge: tell me what is missing, and why it's bad. I am a fair man, and if your reasons are good you'll win me over. The main example being repeated is network transparency, but I honestly can't work out why I should care.
So, you clearly know the point under contention and you decide to prematurely declare that you are unconvertible. Nothing says "fair man" like prejudging.
Some features are more important than others, and it is perfectly sensible to talk about "the average user",
The problem here is that ignoring network transparency is not a case of trading off heavily used versus rarely features. It is a case of dropping shit the developers just don't care about.
You want to make an argument that something like drawing polygons or stippled lines aren't necessary anymore because 99.9% of X11 software does not do that, that's reasonable. But practically ALL X11 software runs on remote displays - dropping such pervasive functionality is in an entirely different league.
I really haven't followed any of the X11 vs Wayland crap, but are you against a new system in principle? Or is it just about Wayland?
My problem is with a new system that does not even match the features of a 30+ year old system.
I can see some nice benefits to a new system built specifically for desktop Linux that does exactly what I need and nothing more.
The problem is that what you need isn't necessarily what other people need. There are people who don't use the mouse, would you be happy if Wayland skipped implementation of mouse support?
I'm a British nobody and I knew that. It was all over the news a couple of months ago. Here we are.
Which demonstrates further that almost all classification is about hiding secrets from ones own citizens.
Dude, it says nothing about weapons plans or any other particular sorts of data being extracted. In fact, simply having a virus of foreign origin on the network would qualify for "penetrated" as used in that testimony.
> Did you actually read the article? The article in which an X developer points out that this is really hard to with X?
Yeah, I read a complete gloss-over about that topic. I'll even give it to you that the X.org implementation could use an overhaul to better match modern hardware characteristics (presumably stuff that was designed with directx in mind, even if it is arm). But clearly there is nothing about the X protocol that is inherently hard to use with this hardware since the X/Wayland server runs on top of it.
I'd rather see the effort put into overhaul X.org, or even start from scratch with a new X11 implementation instead of starting from scratch with an entirely new system that lacks the features X11 has.
Yes, it is well known that X11 over long-latency links sucks. So running remote X over a satellite link is basically the worst possible use case. But remote X on 10mbps local ethernet is significantly faster than RDP over a 256kbps satellite link.
> It's not a lie at all - way to play the man rather than the ball.
Are you kidding me? Did you even read what I wrote? Go back and pay closer attention - I accused you of being disingenuous and emplying misdirection, not of lying. And your mischaracterization right there, that only reduces your credibility even more.
> Most of our users care more about local performance than they do about network transparency, so this is where we're investing our (limited) resources.
You know what? That is FINE. Just stop trying to put words in the mouths of the people who disagree with your prioritization. Go ahead and say that you don't care about network transparency, but stop it with the misleading statements about "backwards compatibility" and now this new one about wayland replacing X in all use cases - because those are simply strawmen, useful for misdirection, not useful for educating anyone else reading along.
we don't lose backwards compatibility because we can host legacy X applications in a Wayland window using XWayland.
Come on man, don't be so disingenuous. That is a "true lie" - a technical truth about a similar-sounding issue intended to hide the truth about the real issue at hand. It isn't about "backwards compatibility" it is about network transparency. Most of the people bitching about wayland do so because of the lack of network transparency, not because of backwards compatibility.
When you can run a wayland app on a remote wayland display with good throughput and good latency - something that simple bit-blasting does not accomplish - then all the people will stop complaining. Hell, just come up with a spec for doing it so that there is a path forward and most people will stop bitching.
But going around telling true lies in order to muddy the waters, that doesn't help anyone and makes the people who do understand the technical issues doubt your sincerity.
Great, more wayland propaganda. As if exploiting certain hardware features has anything to do with Wayland vs X11. Wayland: Breaking decades of backwards compatibility for no good reason.
Exactly. This article boils down to "wayland performance on pi went from suckass to very nice" which is mildly interesting but the implication that wayland rulez and X snoozes because of that is specious. There is no reason X couldn't see the same performance improvement if it too switched drivers.
> Fast & Furious is a major scandal. It's perfectly reasonable for Fox to treat it as such.
It is absolutely a major scandal. But Fox trivializes the scandal by politicizing it. Instead of making it about government run amok, they keep trying to make it about the "other team" running amok. That is a major disservice because it makes people like the OP tune out. They are the little network that cried Fox.
> It's just a ploy for more money. They could take money from other useless parts
Your logic is the same as any conspiracy theorist - it can't be disproved. You'll always be able to pull up some government program that you personally don't think is worthwhile as "proof" that teh government is just holding people hostage for funding.
While I am sure that within the tens of thousands of different budgets internal to the us federal government there is funny business going on, it is specious to claim that is what is going on every time something serious breaks. The government is just not that well organized.
I think this sends an excellent message to naysayers: Not all American startups with DOE loans end up like Solyndra.
In fact, of the 23 companies that received funding under the same program as Solyndra did, at least 19 of them are still in business - that's an 83% success rate. When you factor in the fact that these were all loans that the free-market was too risk averse to take on itself, that number is pretty fantastic. Most venture capital funds are lucky to have a 10% success rate.
If you're a spy or diplomat or whatever, don't use Gmail. At the very least it is subject to the US government's laws. Get yourself a secured server somewhere else.
You are assuming these people were using gmail for clandestine communications. I'm pretty sure even the most basic opsec training would have covered the "don't use email for secret messages" ruie.
What this looks like is a ruse - agents set up email accounts that are never used for spying purposes but are sufficient to attract exactly the kind of counter-espionage actions of getting the US to spy on the accounts. Then grab the list of accounts the US is spying on because that list is in the hands of google who don't have formal handling procedures for classified information and so are an easy target versus some system behind an air-gap firewall. Tada, now you know which spies have had their covers blown. It doesn't tell you which spies are still safe, but it does give positive confirmation of who has been exposed.
They can't tax the federal government. So they decided to create a law that allows for a loophole that taxes the power company and the law also allows the power company to pass the additional costs on to the federal government
I am sooooo OK with this. Seems like just deserts for all the times the fed has collected taxes and then held those funds hostage in order to force the states to pass laws like speed limits.
Slashdot Mirror
We regularly demonize many classes of people and demote to non-human. Pedophiles. terrorists, monsters-du-jour, you name it. Before those is was gays, blacks, various ethnicities, you name it. Fashions come, fashions go.
Those two sets are distinct - the first group are people who have actively done something to harm others. The second set are simply groups of people that other groups of people dislike - nothing more than tribalism.
I'll be the first to say that the labels of pedophile and terrorist are way too broadly applied but misuse of labels is generally just a form of tribalism while correct use of labels is simply descriptive.
> Even if the feature set of Wayland were exactly the same as X
Hhhm. Just what part of "My problem is with a new system that does not even match the features of a 30+ year old system." leads you to believe your statement applies to my position? Don't be that guy man, don't be that guy.
Here's a challenge: tell me what is missing, and why it's bad. I am a fair man, and if your reasons are good you'll win me over. The main example being repeated is network transparency, but I honestly can't work out why I should care.
So, you clearly know the point under contention and you decide to prematurely declare that you are unconvertible. Nothing says "fair man" like prejudging.
Some features are more important than others, and it is perfectly sensible to talk about "the average user",
The problem here is that ignoring network transparency is not a case of trading off heavily used versus rarely features. It is a case of dropping shit the developers just don't care about.
You want to make an argument that something like drawing polygons or stippled lines aren't necessary anymore because 99.9% of X11 software does not do that, that's reasonable. But practically ALL X11 software runs on remote displays - dropping such pervasive functionality is in an entirely different league.
> you're being deliberately obtuse. A plain-old desktop user doesn't need all the features of X
Yeah, like what exactly?
Many of the X developers disagree with you.
And many of them agree with me. Whatsyourpoint?
I really haven't followed any of the X11 vs Wayland crap, but are you against a new system in principle? Or is it just about Wayland?
My problem is with a new system that does not even match the features of a 30+ year old system.
I can see some nice benefits to a new system built specifically for desktop Linux that does exactly what I need and nothing more.
The problem is that what you need isn't necessarily what other people need. There are people who don't use the mouse, would you be happy if Wayland skipped implementation of mouse support?
I'm a British nobody and I knew that. It was all over the news a couple of months ago. Here we are.
Which demonstrates further that almost all classification is about hiding secrets from ones own citizens.
Dude, it says nothing about weapons plans or any other particular sorts of data being extracted. In fact, simply having a virus of foreign origin on the network would qualify for "penetrated" as used in that testimony.
The Chinese stole it off one of the classified networks (like SIPRNet), which the DoD has known to be compromised for quite some time.
You got a citation for that? Seems to me that if true, that information itself would be classified.
> Did you actually read the article? The article in which an X developer points out that this is really hard to with X?
Yeah, I read a complete gloss-over about that topic. I'll even give it to you that the X.org implementation could use an overhaul to better match modern hardware characteristics (presumably stuff that was designed with directx in mind, even if it is arm). But clearly there is nothing about the X protocol that is inherently hard to use with this hardware since the X/Wayland server runs on top of it.
I'd rather see the effort put into overhaul X.org, or even start from scratch with a new X11 implementation instead of starting from scratch with an entirely new system that lacks the features X11 has.
> Would you say that to this guy's face?
Absolutely. When people tell "true lies" to avoid addressing my points in real life I call them out on it just as much as I do online.
Yes, it is well known that X11 over long-latency links sucks. So running remote X over a satellite link is basically the worst possible use case. But remote X on 10mbps local ethernet is significantly faster than RDP over a 256kbps satellite link.
> It's not a lie at all - way to play the man rather than the ball.
Are you kidding me? Did you even read what I wrote? Go back and pay closer attention - I accused you of being disingenuous and emplying misdirection, not of lying. And your mischaracterization right there, that only reduces your credibility even more.
> Most of our users care more about local performance than they do about network transparency, so this is where we're investing our (limited) resources.
You know what? That is FINE. Just stop trying to put words in the mouths of the people who disagree with your prioritization. Go ahead and say that you don't care about network transparency, but stop it with the misleading statements about "backwards compatibility" and now this new one about wayland replacing X in all use cases - because those are simply strawmen, useful for misdirection, not useful for educating anyone else reading along.
we don't lose backwards compatibility because we can host legacy X applications in a Wayland window using XWayland.
Come on man, don't be so disingenuous. That is a "true lie" - a technical truth about a similar-sounding issue intended to hide the truth about the real issue at hand. It isn't about "backwards compatibility" it is about network transparency. Most of the people bitching about wayland do so because of the lack of network transparency, not because of backwards compatibility.
When you can run a wayland app on a remote wayland display with good throughput and good latency - something that simple bit-blasting does not accomplish - then all the people will stop complaining. Hell, just come up with a spec for doing it so that there is a path forward and most people will stop bitching.
But going around telling true lies in order to muddy the waters, that doesn't help anyone and makes the people who do understand the technical issues doubt your sincerity.
Great, more wayland propaganda. As if exploiting certain hardware features has anything to do with Wayland vs X11. Wayland: Breaking decades of backwards compatibility for no good reason.
Exactly. This article boils down to "wayland performance on pi went from suckass to very nice" which is mildly interesting but the implication that wayland rulez and X snoozes because of that is specious. There is no reason X couldn't see the same performance improvement if it too switched drivers.
> Fast & Furious is a major scandal. It's perfectly reasonable for Fox to treat it as such.
It is absolutely a major scandal. But Fox trivializes the scandal by politicizing it. Instead of making it about government run amok, they keep trying to make it about the "other team" running amok. That is a major disservice because it makes people like the OP tune out. They are the little network that cried Fox.
> Ya, my family was positivily saved by crack and MDMA. What drugs saved your family?
Dude, even think-of-the-children central - Oprah is has been talking about the theraputic uses of MDMA.
> what is next? Will you need to login with google+ to download?
That is what I expect. I think if Google+ had Facebook's marketshare they would already be doing that sort of thing across most of google''s services.
> It's just a ploy for more money. They could take money from other useless parts
Your logic is the same as any conspiracy theorist - it can't be disproved. You'll always be able to pull up some government program that you personally don't think is worthwhile as "proof" that teh government is just holding people hostage for funding.
While I am sure that within the tens of thousands of different budgets internal to the us federal government there is funny business going on, it is specious to claim that is what is going on every time something serious breaks. The government is just not that well organized.
I think this sends an excellent message to naysayers: Not all American startups with DOE loans end up like Solyndra.
In fact, of the 23 companies that received funding under the same program as Solyndra did, at least 19 of them are still in business - that's an 83% success rate. When you factor in the fact that these were all loans that the free-market was too risk averse to take on itself, that number is pretty fantastic. Most venture capital funds are lucky to have a 10% success rate.
Lol, I scanned it for "Denmark" and figured that was good enough. Guess I don't have that autistic attention to detail.
SAP aren't the first to do this.
Thorkil Sonne at Specialisterne in Denmark has built a consultancy of autistics.
> Sounds like you just want the benefits of paying by the hour without any of the negatives.
Bingo. He didn't explicitly say he was paying by the hour, but reading between the lines it sure sounded like it.
If you're a spy or diplomat or whatever, don't use Gmail. At the very least it is subject to the US government's laws. Get yourself a secured server somewhere else.
You are assuming these people were using gmail for clandestine communications. I'm pretty sure even the most basic opsec training would have covered the "don't use email for secret messages" ruie.
What this looks like is a ruse - agents set up email accounts that are never used for spying purposes but are sufficient to attract exactly the kind of counter-espionage actions of getting the US to spy on the accounts. Then grab the list of accounts the US is spying on because that list is in the hands of google who don't have formal handling procedures for classified information and so are an easy target versus some system behind an air-gap firewall. Tada, now you know which spies have had their covers blown. It doesn't tell you which spies are still safe, but it does give positive confirmation of who has been exposed.
I'm the OP and I know what I'm talking about.
> Desert = very dry place, famous ones have lots of sand
ALSO: Deserts = what you deserve.
> The phrase isn't "just deserts". It's "just desserts". Look it up.
Sure, here it is: just deserts
They can't tax the federal government. So they decided to create a law that allows for a loophole that taxes the power company and the law also allows the power company to pass the additional costs on to the federal government
I am sooooo OK with this. Seems like just deserts for all the times the fed has collected taxes and then held those funds hostage in order to force the states to pass laws like speed limits.