http://www.linode.com/

Yeah I was expecting something new like this would be working on Wayland already. I'm disappointed.

Wake me up when someone makes something like this work on Wayland.

+1 for Wayland.

You can use different toolkits in different OSs like Windows or Mac.

Nothing prevents you from installing GTK+ or Qt in OSX or Windows and develop with those toolkits.

Options in the sense that those options will be there only for advanced users, e.g. inexperienced users won't see them if they don't want to, but experienced users will have them if they want to.

I really want to see Wayland being adopted soon too.

I think sane defaults is a good thing, however, the problem becomes when those sane defaults are the limitation, when you need to do something else and you cannot tweak things. That's when people start to become frustrated.

I don't think it would be a bad idea to provide a nice desktop with sane defaults and then add OPTIONS to do what more advanced users want to do.

Regards.

I agree, that's one of the reasons I love mplayer for audio/video.

I just feed it with data and mplayer plays it, it doesn't get in my way with stupid GUIs.

How is this news for nerds?

That depends on your definition of freedom. I prefer freedom in the sense that I know the code will always remain free and available. As a developer and user I want my code to be always available, I also want contributors to never close what I made open in the first place. I prefer freedom in the sense of Free software, GPL and strong copy-left. AKA "Liberty or Death".

BSD brings uncertainty when it comes to having contributors closing the source code and not contributing back.

I don't think so. Wayland will have network transparency if there is a need. maybe through the GUI toolkits (Qt, GTK+, etc).

Sorry for my English, I'm not a native speaker.

I agree when you say that network transparency is important, and that the right thing to do would be to have both things (networking and nice looks), sorry.

I disagree when you say that Wayland is irrelevant, I think Wayland is more relevant than ever now, and I'd like to see it succeed.

Couldn't we move the network transparency stuff in a separate library or server and have the GUI toolkits use that (GTK+, Qt, etc)?

Wouldn't that work? Does it HAVE to be in the display server layer?

Making it optionally in a library would be nice I think.

I've been using Linux since 1999, I remember when X got the COMPOSITE extension, it was soon after the XFree86->Xorg fork, and after the experimental KDrive stuff from Keith Packard. Then Xgl and AIGLX appeared also.

What I'm saying is that Wayland is interesting, and it makes sense to have it now that we have KMS.

Seriously, what's so bad about client-side decorations? Doesn't client-side decorations allows applications like Google Chrome to draw their own decorations. If it helps applications to draw their own decorations, what's the problem with that? There are people who likes that (me included). They could always implement an off switch to disable it if you don't like.

Also, I don't think nobody is trying to take network transparency away from you. Wayland developers just have other priorities now. And if there is a need for network transparency, it will be done. I don't doubt that.

Have you seen that GTK+3 demo that allows applications to be remotely accessed via HTML5? I know it's not the same, but it's still cool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO-qca9ddqg

Well, how many desktop users actually use network transparency? (only a minority of users). And how many desktop users want applications that don't look like Windows 95 applications? (the majority of users).

See how Wayland fits in the picture very well?

Agreed. Wayland is the way of the future. I hope we'll be able to use soon for real.