How does that work if I want it to run both ways? What I mean is say I have a desktop running Wayland. Occasionally I actually want to sit down at it and get full speed, full 3d, etc...
So... GTK applications run using a copy of GTK which targets Wayland rather than X, QT apps run using a version of QT which targets Wayland. Now I am sitting at another computer elsewhere and want to run one of those programs on my Desktop but display it at the computer I am on. Can I somehow tell the application to use a different copy of GTK or QT which targets X instead of Wayland? Can this be done in some sort of wrapper or with a commandline option? Better yet, just using the DISPLAY environment variable? If so then this might be ok but why don't the Wayland developers just come out and explain this?
I am thinking it would actually require a recompile. Meaning I would have to chose ahead of time, this application is going to support remote display or this application is going to be native Wayland. Given that choice they are ALL going to get compiled for X so why would I even bother with Wayland at all?
Or is it even that flexible? Do I have to make this choice at the time of installing GTK or QT? I install the X GTK or the Wayland GTK? Then all GTK applications always use that choice all the time? That is not acceptable!
I have read the Wayland FAQ too and various responses that Wayland developers have written to the network transparency criticism too. Usually it devolves into talk about running X on Wayland (which says nothing about how to run a non X Wayland application remotely). Now.. let's go with what you have written. Network transparency in the compositor. With KDE applications that means KWin. So let's say KDE decides they like network transparency and build that into KWin. Great! so now my KDE apps can still run remotely. What about non-KDE apps? Will Gnome applications run remotely? And every other application? Even if they all implement network transparency in their own way does this mean I have to do something different to make each of them run remotely? I can't just set DISPLAY=.... and go anymore?
I really doubt that network transparency is what is slowing down your $200 video card. X applications have had channels for communicating with local X servers without going over the network or even TCP/IP for a very long time. Your $200 video card is slowed down because the company that made it only implemented core features in the X driver. They are probably even less interested in developing full drivers for yet another system.
Also, I am not an 'admin guy'. I do use network transparency though.. a lot. I don't really use 3d acceleration, at least not for more than eye candy that isn't really very important to me. I don't want your favorite feature to go away though! Why do you want to take away mine?
I'm guessing they probably don't have enough Flash to be useful simply by 'rooting' them so just installing an X server is out. If I am wrong then that is probably the way to go. However, there have been a lot of display driver boards on EBay lately. They are marketed towards allowing people to take the screens from old laptops and make them useful again as monitors. There are ones that do VGA, DVI, HDMI, Composite, etc and various combinations of those. Some have built in audio amplifiers so you could add speakers if you want to.
You have to find a board that is compatible with your LCD. You would have to take the frame apart and identify the LCD model and then go to EBay. They usually list the models each board supports in the ad plus you have to tell them which one you have when you order so they can flash the right firmware for you. I have no idea how likely your photo frames are to be supported by any of those boards. I know they are usually marketed towards use with old laptop screens but maybe some of the photo frames were similar? It could be worth a try.
If you do that there are also touch sensor kits available, you could add touch capability. You could even add a Raspberry Pi or any one of a number of similar devices and make something self contained out of it rather than a monitor. I doubt you will fit the LCD, Raspberry Pi and the driver board all back into the frame though (but then again, you might). You will probably have to make a new box for it.
If you are really good with LCD then you might be able to skip the driver board and connect the LCD directly to the Raspberry Pi, or maybe with just a DSI chip. If you were up for that though I doubt you would be asking about this here.
Whatever you decide to do, you probably would do better asking this on the forums over at Hack a Day rather than Slashdot.
Or... just fill it full of objectionable content, leave it in a public place and wait for the fireworks to start.
I have read the FAQ several times. Concerning network transparency it is nothing but doubletalk. Their answer is to run X on top of Wayland? Great, so one can run X applications remotely. If new applications and new versions of existing applications are written for Wayland rather than X then that is not even remotely useful. Even if only certain applications which might not run well remotely are targeted towards Wayland and everything else stays X forever.. that is not good. One person's opinion of what is usable and what isn't varies from another. LAN speeds vary, etc... It's better if anyone who wants to can try to run any application remotely and make up their own mind about usability.
VNC and NX? First, unless those projects are modified to run Wayland Apps then that still only gets you X apps which Wayland aims to eventually deprecate. Even if they were modified to run Wayland apps... this is not the same. It is a window acting as a view into another computer with all remote windows locked inside of it, not a local window to a process on a remote computer.
But they are not doing it right, they are not giving us everything we had before. They are taking away one of the key features that made *nix plus X more useful than other alternatives.
Sometimes that's a feature, sometimes not. I use remote X on a LAN and don't worry much about a dropped connection. OTOH i love the fact that all I have to do is hit the power button on my terminal and it starts shutting itself down. Once it is down my remote computer is no longer wasting resources on the applications I had running remotely. If I have work I don't want to lose I save it or just don't turn it off! This is especially good with browsers like Firefox as it is annoying to sit down at my computer, click the browser and it doesn't start because I forgot to turn it off in some other session.
VNC has it's uses but it isn't really the same thing at all.
VNC has to be turned on per-user (usually by a shell terminal). Then it's a single window of a predetermined size containing all your remote applications. I can't drag remote application X over here and Y over there at the local terminal unless I am using 2 VNC sessions or my VNC window fills the whole screen (either way is awkward). Maximizing a window maximizes it within the VNC window, not within my local screen. Cut and paste may be available but it requires having another application running at the VNC server, usually which I end up closing by mistake at some point.
When I am using remote X for individual windows I like it better than VNC because I can move everything around, maximize, minimize, cut and paste back and forth just as though it were local.
When I am only using the local machine as a terminal (I want everything I see to be the remote machine) remote X is nice because I can set up the local terminal to automatically connect to the remote machine and give me a login prompt. I can automate this and don't need to ssh in and start something (which seems really hokey to me for any kind of permanent setup). Then I can log in as any user of the remote machine, and see what for all intents and purposes looks like a local desktop.
I don't even do that. I have a dedicated X terminal in which I have modified the rc scripts so that I go right to a remote X login screen. All I do is turn it on and in a moment I am connected to my remote X desktop.
I use it over a LAN. I have a thin client in my garage, on my workbench. It's a nice little low power, 12V fanless PC with a very bare bones Debian. I turn it on and a moment later I have a graphical login to my main desktop. Why do the Wayland developers want to take this away from me?
Also, I have used X over the internet in the past. It's a bit too slow IMHO when tunneled through SSH which is probably the most common way to secure it. I used to run openvpn though and it worked just fine through that. I only stopped using it because my router with the built in open vpn server died and I have not gotten around to replacing it. I intend to bring that back one of these days.
No, that's what the developers say all over the page but it doesn't answer the problem at all. Once applications are targeted for Wayland rather than targeted for X your X daemon inside Wayland is useless.
A small fine should be sufficient.. so long as it is per-call. How many of those calls make the caller money anyway? I expect it's like spam... only profitable because the expense per message is negligible. By keeping the per-call fine low it makes for a more reasonable punishment if a small organization maybe gets a little too loose with their operating practices while it still hits a company sending these things by the 100s of thousands hard.
I want to move my previous comment to here please!
"I doubt it. They (neanderthals) had bigger brains than Homo Sapiens Sapiens." Maybe offspring of Homo Floresiensis managed to escape their island and grew taller...
I tend to keep my laptops long after the batteries are useless and just plug them in. I'd like to actually go further and replace the barrel connectors with locking connectors, maybe powerpoles or something similar. I do get why somebody would want the magnetic connectors, they just don't work very well for me. Barrel connectors though... they just seem like the worst of both worlds.
That's why if you are the one introducing it you introduce it slowly. Stockpile if you have to. By the time it becomes a low value commodity you are insanely rich.
This probably means there will be a lot of iPhone "knockoffs" on the black market that actually are iPhones but didn't pass quality inspections and were supposed to have been destroyed. More than usual I mean.
"The judge actually criticized Samsung's design by stating that they 'do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design.'"
Ever since the first iPods became popular I haven't understood this obsession with simplicity. I do get it that there are more non-geeks than geeks out there and that the non-geeks don't want to have to work to learn how to use anything. Still.. I want my stuff to actually do something, doesn't everyone? How can it be easier to accomplish a task of a certain complexity with fewer and fewer controls? For example, going back to MP3 players, if I want to pick a playlist from my music collection of just the songs I am in the mood for at this time how do I do this with just one rotating control? I'm guessing what is really happening is that people have a low expectation of what their devices should do but also don't have the imagination to realize that expectation is low
What I really don't get is that the rest of the industry just tries to copy it rather than attack it. Yes, Apple has a huge market of simplicity hungry people with money to spend. Guess what... imitate that simplicity, through copying or through your own desings and you still aren't Apple! Nobody is going to out Apple Apple because even if you do the inertia is all Apple's anyway.
Instead, why hasn't anybody tried building the market for non simlistic devices? I can imagine there being some pretty great marketing campaign opportunities in that. For example.. how about a commercial where a hipster looking guy is showing off his shiny new car with it's sexy extreme simplicity elegance to his friends and the girl he obviously wants to impress. It's so simple, there is just one button. He presses the button and the car promply crashes because there is no wheel to steer it! At the end you hear an announcer say "Android - because it's not TOO simple" or some similar but more polished tag line.
Um, yeah.. because Apple's customers really care about what they are getting more than that it says Apple on it. They just now got turn by turn directions FCOL... I don't think Apple can do any wrong by their customers and their stock is not going down for a very very long time.
Profile 5 can be either 12 or 20? And is this somehow negotiated outside of negotiating which profile to use or is it just a crapshoot, one manufacturer chooses to implement 12 while another chooses 20? Why do standards committees always seem to pull this crap? Just make it either 12 or 20 and make that the only valid profile 5 standard! Seeing as Profiles 4 maxes out at 60W and 12V @ 5A is also 60W I would go with the 20V option for profile 5.
There has got to be prior art for this in the adult toy industry. Or does this get by for being 'on a console' just like all that 'on a computer' crap?
Slashdot Mirror
How does that work if I want it to run both ways? What I mean is say I have a desktop running Wayland. Occasionally I actually want to sit down at it and get full speed, full 3d, etc...
So... GTK applications run using a copy of GTK which targets Wayland rather than X, QT apps run using a version of QT which targets Wayland. Now I am sitting at another computer elsewhere and want to run one of those programs on my Desktop but display it at the computer I am on. Can I somehow tell the application to use a different copy of GTK or QT which targets X instead of Wayland? Can this be done in some sort of wrapper or with a commandline option? Better yet, just using the DISPLAY environment variable? If so then this might be ok but why don't the Wayland developers just come out and explain this?
I am thinking it would actually require a recompile. Meaning I would have to chose ahead of time, this application is going to support remote display or this application is going to be native Wayland. Given that choice they are ALL going to get compiled for X so why would I even bother with Wayland at all?
Or is it even that flexible? Do I have to make this choice at the time of installing GTK or QT? I install the X GTK or the Wayland GTK? Then all GTK applications always use that choice all the time? That is not acceptable!
Your faith in Wayland ever getting a remote protocol seems pretty blind to me. The developers sound quite opposed to the idea.
I have read the Wayland FAQ too and various responses that Wayland developers have written to the network transparency criticism too. Usually it devolves into talk about running X on Wayland (which says nothing about how to run a non X Wayland application remotely). Now.. let's go with what you have written. Network transparency in the compositor. With KDE applications that means KWin. So let's say KDE decides they like network transparency and build that into KWin. Great! so now my KDE apps can still run remotely. What about non-KDE apps? Will Gnome applications run remotely? And every other application? Even if they all implement network transparency in their own way does this mean I have to do something different to make each of them run remotely? I can't just set DISPLAY=.... and go anymore?
I really doubt that network transparency is what is slowing down your $200 video card. X applications have had channels for communicating with local X servers without going over the network or even TCP/IP for a very long time. Your $200 video card is slowed down because the company that made it only implemented core features in the X driver. They are probably even less interested in developing full drivers for yet another system.
Also, I am not an 'admin guy'. I do use network transparency though.. a lot. I don't really use 3d acceleration, at least not for more than eye candy that isn't really very important to me. I don't want your favorite feature to go away though! Why do you want to take away mine?
I'm guessing they probably don't have enough Flash to be useful simply by 'rooting' them so just installing an X server is out. If I am wrong then that is probably the way to go. However, there have been a lot of display driver boards on EBay lately. They are marketed towards allowing people to take the screens from old laptops and make them useful again as monitors. There are ones that do VGA, DVI, HDMI, Composite, etc and various combinations of those. Some have built in audio amplifiers so you could add speakers if you want to.
You have to find a board that is compatible with your LCD. You would have to take the frame apart and identify the LCD model and then go to EBay. They usually list the models each board supports in the ad plus you have to tell them which one you have when you order so they can flash the right firmware for you. I have no idea how likely your photo frames are to be supported by any of those boards. I know they are usually marketed towards use with old laptop screens but maybe some of the photo frames were similar? It could be worth a try.
If you do that there are also touch sensor kits available, you could add touch capability. You could even add a Raspberry Pi or any one of a number of similar devices and make something self contained out of it rather than a monitor. I doubt you will fit the LCD, Raspberry Pi and the driver board all back into the frame though (but then again, you might). You will probably have to make a new box for it.
If you are really good with LCD then you might be able to skip the driver board and connect the LCD directly to the Raspberry Pi, or maybe with just a DSI chip. If you were up for that though I doubt you would be asking about this here.
Whatever you decide to do, you probably would do better asking this on the forums over at Hack a Day rather than Slashdot.
Or... just fill it full of objectionable content, leave it in a public place and wait for the fireworks to start.
try hack a day
How do you run an application which is targeted towards Wayland, not X remotely?
I have read the FAQ several times. Concerning network transparency it is nothing but doubletalk. Their answer is to run X on top of Wayland? Great, so one can run X applications remotely. If new applications and new versions of existing applications are written for Wayland rather than X then that is not even remotely useful. Even if only certain applications which might not run well remotely are targeted towards Wayland and everything else stays X forever.. that is not good. One person's opinion of what is usable and what isn't varies from another. LAN speeds vary, etc... It's better if anyone who wants to can try to run any application remotely and make up their own mind about usability.
VNC and NX? First, unless those projects are modified to run Wayland Apps then that still only gets you X apps which Wayland aims to eventually deprecate. Even if they were modified to run Wayland apps... this is not the same. It is a window acting as a view into another computer with all remote windows locked inside of it, not a local window to a process on a remote computer.
But they are not doing it right, they are not giving us everything we had before. They are taking away one of the key features that made *nix plus X more useful than other alternatives.
Sometimes that's a feature, sometimes not. I use remote X on a LAN and don't worry much about a dropped connection. OTOH i love the fact that all I have to do is hit the power button on my terminal and it starts shutting itself down. Once it is down my remote computer is no longer wasting resources on the applications I had running remotely. If I have work I don't want to lose I save it or just don't turn it off! This is especially good with browsers like Firefox as it is annoying to sit down at my computer, click the browser and it doesn't start because I forgot to turn it off in some other session.
VNC has it's uses but it isn't really the same thing at all.
VNC has to be turned on per-user (usually by a shell terminal). Then it's a single window of a predetermined size containing all your remote applications. I can't drag remote application X over here and Y over there at the local terminal unless I am using 2 VNC sessions or my VNC window fills the whole screen (either way is awkward). Maximizing a window maximizes it within the VNC window, not within my local screen. Cut and paste may be available but it requires having another application running at the VNC server, usually which I end up closing by mistake at some point.
When I am using remote X for individual windows I like it better than VNC because I can move everything around, maximize, minimize, cut and paste back and forth just as though it were local.
When I am only using the local machine as a terminal (I want everything I see to be the remote machine) remote X is nice because I can set up the local terminal to automatically connect to the remote machine and give me a login prompt. I can automate this and don't need to ssh in and start something (which seems really hokey to me for any kind of permanent setup). Then I can log in as any user of the remote machine, and see what for all intents and purposes looks like a local desktop.
I don't even do that. I have a dedicated X terminal in which I have modified the rc scripts so that I go right to a remote X login screen. All I do is turn it on and in a moment I am connected to my remote X desktop.
I use it over a LAN. I have a thin client in my garage, on my workbench. It's a nice little low power, 12V fanless PC with a very bare bones Debian. I turn it on and a moment later I have a graphical login to my main desktop. Why do the Wayland developers want to take this away from me?
Also, I have used X over the internet in the past. It's a bit too slow IMHO when tunneled through SSH which is probably the most common way to secure it. I used to run openvpn though and it worked just fine through that. I only stopped using it because my router with the built in open vpn server died and I have not gotten around to replacing it. I intend to bring that back one of these days.
No, that's what the developers say all over the page but it doesn't answer the problem at all. Once applications are targeted for Wayland rather than targeted for X your X daemon inside Wayland is useless.
A small fine should be sufficient.. so long as it is per-call. How many of those calls make the caller money anyway? I expect it's like spam... only profitable because the expense per message is negligible. By keeping the per-call fine low it makes for a more reasonable punishment if a small organization maybe gets a little too loose with their operating practices while it still hits a company sending these things by the 100s of thousands hard.
I want to move my previous comment to here please! "I doubt it. They (neanderthals) had bigger brains than Homo Sapiens Sapiens." Maybe offspring of Homo Floresiensis managed to escape their island and grew taller...
I doubt it. They had bigger brains than Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
I tend to keep my laptops long after the batteries are useless and just plug them in. I'd like to actually go further and replace the barrel connectors with locking connectors, maybe powerpoles or something similar. I do get why somebody would want the magnetic connectors, they just don't work very well for me. Barrel connectors though... they just seem like the worst of both worlds.
That's why if you are the one introducing it you introduce it slowly. Stockpile if you have to. By the time it becomes a low value commodity you are insanely rich.
This probably means there will be a lot of iPhone "knockoffs" on the black market that actually are iPhones but didn't pass quality inspections and were supposed to have been destroyed. More than usual I mean.
"The judge actually criticized Samsung's design by stating that they 'do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design.'"
Ever since the first iPods became popular I haven't understood this obsession with simplicity. I do get it that there are more non-geeks than geeks out there and that the non-geeks don't want to have to work to learn how to use anything. Still.. I want my stuff to actually do something, doesn't everyone? How can it be easier to accomplish a task of a certain complexity with fewer and fewer controls? For example, going back to MP3 players, if I want to pick a playlist from my music collection of just the songs I am in the mood for at this time how do I do this with just one rotating control? I'm guessing what is really happening is that people have a low expectation of what their devices should do but also don't have the imagination to realize that expectation is low
What I really don't get is that the rest of the industry just tries to copy it rather than attack it. Yes, Apple has a huge market of simplicity hungry people with money to spend. Guess what... imitate that simplicity, through copying or through your own desings and you still aren't Apple! Nobody is going to out Apple Apple because even if you do the inertia is all Apple's anyway.
Instead, why hasn't anybody tried building the market for non simlistic devices? I can imagine there being some pretty great marketing campaign opportunities in that. For example.. how about a commercial where a hipster looking guy is showing off his shiny new car with it's sexy extreme simplicity elegance to his friends and the girl he obviously wants to impress. It's so simple, there is just one button. He presses the button and the car promply crashes because there is no wheel to steer it! At the end you hear an announcer say "Android - because it's not TOO simple" or some similar but more polished tag line.
Um, yeah.. because Apple's customers really care about what they are getting more than that it says Apple on it. They just now got turn by turn directions FCOL... I don't think Apple can do any wrong by their customers and their stock is not going down for a very very long time.
Profile 5 can be either 12 or 20? And is this somehow negotiated outside of negotiating which profile to use or is it just a crapshoot, one manufacturer chooses to implement 12 while another chooses 20? Why do standards committees always seem to pull this crap? Just make it either 12 or 20 and make that the only valid profile 5 standard! Seeing as Profiles 4 maxes out at 60W and 12V @ 5A is also 60W I would go with the 20V option for profile 5.
There are several states which do not require the teaching of science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education_in_the_United_States
There has got to be prior art for this in the adult toy industry. Or does this get by for being 'on a console' just like all that 'on a computer' crap?