On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Adam Jackson <ajax@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 04:05 -0500, Jon Masters wrote: > >> +1 for bringing these points up. No offense to krh (because it's nice >> technology) but you can pull my genuine networked applications from my >> cold dead hands. I agree that I see this ongoing trend to move toward >> things that are fluffy and pretty at the cost of flexibility. > > No. ÂYou see the system you know and understand being replaced by one > you don't. ÂYou have an emotional attachment to the old system because > it gives you a feature you like and the dozens of problems with it > aren't important to you. ÂAnd you claim that the replacement is less > flexible because you don't understand or don't want to learn the new > thing. I've mostly been watching here and I think people have been fairly clearly about their concerns: Network transparency is important to them, and they understand that the wayland message is that it will not be supported. This message has been clear enough to me here and elsewhereâ with people arguing things like applications which need network transparency are all now web based. So, > You are, in short, scared. ... I think this is a rather unfair characterization. Perhaps the concerns that people have are misplacedââ perhaps a switch to somehow wayland doesn't imply a loss of reasonably functioning network transparency. If so, then clarifying it beyond your "gtk/qt" will offer both X and wayland would be helpful. Especially since providing both TUI and GUI administrative tools hasn't really panned out in practice. In any case, I can't see that there has been any real concern raised about _change_. Fedora is full of change. People are raising and arguing specific concerns about the nature of the changes. Please treat your list co-habitants with a little more respect. [snip] > Remoting a wayland application is _trivial_. ÂEither to an X or to a > wayland view system. ÂIt's hard to make wayland remoting less flexible > than X over the network, since the natural remoting level (surface > updates) is basically stateless unlike X's sixteen complete IPC > interfaces, and unlike X you're actually guaranteed that the window > surfaces exist and have meaningful content. ÂSo you get the > long-lusted-for "screen for X" almost for free. One message ago you were saying that the network transparency concern was a non-issue because GTK/QT apps would support both wayland and X. Here you're saying that wayland will have network transparency? I'm rather confused. Can you help me understand? So long as integrated network transparency doesn't get any worse I don't think that anyone raising concerns would have an issue. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
