Don't forget Greased Yoda if you do. Slashdot Beta deserves it.

I think they've realised something that a lot of X11 proponents haven't: that a one-size-fits-all solution won't work anymore.

I'm a desktop Linux user. I am not a sysadmin, and never will be. I have not used network transparency and likely never will.

I use fullscreen video daily, on the other hand. It has tearing. Switching from Ubuntu on a good desktop to Windows on a sucky netbook feels like an improvement video-wise, and that's not how it should be.

The people who have the most to lose from a switch to Wayland are the same people that have the power to choose their own display server. The ones who can't make the switch manually are the same people who will gain from it, on the other hand.

Looking at things from my perspective, I'm glad people are working on a better desktop experience. If anyone wonders why they're ignoring your network transparency...well, that's what a lot of people are doing about better video. There are two camps, and neither has a solution that works for both.

You're basically saying that India is corrupt, so a new project has to be literally all about corruption.

You support this idea by basically saying that the US will always be the first to do any beneficial thing, even when the return isn't great.

If you're trolling, you're not doing an entertaining enough job of it.

In reality, there are electricity users that are just fine with following a schedule. You seem to assume that the default everywhere is factories running constantly.

If there's a plant nearby which generates electricity out of thin air, you can bet people will find a use for it. I find the idea of electricity produced during the workday being useless pretty surprising - how could someone *not* find a use for it?

It could look like anything for all I care, if it *worked*.

But the beta is a huge discussion functionality downgrade. Might as well read comments on Ars Technica to get that masochist interface kick...

Without commenting on the bias, what word should they use? (I'm assuming that's /sarcasm at the end there)

The dolphins will be killed for meat. The word for killing animals for food is "slaughter". In fact, using that word makes it very clear that they are just animals: the reason it's a strong word when used about human violence is that its meaning then becomes "killed like mere animals".

That story sounds totally believable to me. I used Ganymede as a focusing aid yesterday (mirrorless camera, overwhelmed by Jupiter's brightness). If I can use a planet-sized moon as a focusing aid, I have no problem believing that a guy like that used a bird's eye for telescope testing. : )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobsonian_telescope#Dobson.27s_design_innovations

Now you have heard of both.

I *did* start my day by putting words in your mouth. I'm sorry about that.

I stand by what I said about calling either technology "horrible" though. Although we seen to agree more or less on that...

I agree 100%: just look at Photoshop. Imagine where it would be today had Adobe somehow managed to eliminate all piracy. The answer is, probably in pro use, like it is now. But normal people would have needed something else, and that would have been a competitor. It could even have meant normal people using GIMP more. Who knows, maybe it could have been a blessing for GIMP, leading to more contributors, more pro-level features...

A big userbase makes software stronger. Who cares if some user has the wrong ideology, if he's using your software? Only those who break the license are a problem.

Heh, angry much? Calm down, man. I couldn't even decipher your point, there was so much RAGE in the way.

Nice, the situation is completely black-and-white, isn't it? Anyone disagreeing with you is a violent fanboy, are they?

You're doing the same thing as those supposed fanboys with your blanket dismissal. Neither technology is horrible. Incandescents are really inefficient, whereas CFLs are more toxic and fragile.

If you want to get a lot of light for little power (or just a lot of light), incandescents can't beat CFLs. If you need a continuous spectrum, then incandescents can't be beat.

A correctly-installed CFL will save a lot of money compared to an incandescent, and avoid the hassle of changing bulbs constantly. Airtight, hot fixtures will cause problems, on the other hand, and you can't use CFLs in an oven of course.

Both technologies have many strengths and weaknesses: there's no reason to pretend otherwise.

You're really upset about the mercury in conventional fluorescents too, right?

Because of the mercury I'm looking forward to LEDs replacing all other lights, which has already started happening.

However, your complaints sound like you've been buying cheap CFLs, at least if the market is anything like it is in Finland. I've bought expensive (up to ten euros) CFLs of two or three different brands, and I can't remember which year I bought a single one of them, they last that long. Even these expensive ones save money, while giving more light. I'm picky about light colour, too, and my Philips bulbs give good, warm colour.

None of my fixtures support the wattage necessary to get the light I'm getting now. I get more light for less money, and avoid the hassle of changing a bulb every year.

I hope you're wrong, and the good CFLs exist there too. That said, even the best ones are not for all applications, and LEDs will certainly be an improvement. Until then, I will be saving money every day.

However, even assuming X11 is fundamentally sound, it does not necessarily follow that the best solution is rewriting it. Writing even a good new thing may be more efficient.

I think it's important to remember that MS didn't really know what they should be doing - except for the NT kernel, which I hear is beautiful.

Until XP arrived, desktops used 95, 98 and ME. 98 would last about a day on my box before crashing, while 2000 pretty much just didn't crash on the same hardware. 95 shipped without TCP/IP, and Microsoft pushed their own non-Internet network before they had to give up. XP was not ready for what the net was to become, and suffered inexcusable security problems.

My point is pretty much this: one can not predict the future, and sometimes sloppy work gives good results. Writing good code and providing something which does well at *something* is all anyone can do. Trying to do everything well WILL fail, however.

If Wayland gives better fullscreen video, then I'd like that. Someone running a server won't have to do the same, though - it's not like X11 will disappear at the first sight of Wayland success.