> You do realize that quantum mechanics were met with similar derision? Heck, Einstein never really accepted the notion, and that's as great a scientist as we've ever had

And you could add, "and he had a better understanding of quantum mechanic than most of the scientists" cue EPR paradox, how many scientists who accepted QM understood that QM was non local?

> I never used Wave, and it was shut down long before I joined Google, so I have no idea what you're talking about, much less who made that decision. It doesn't sound like the sort of decision made by a CEO, however.

Wave had a synchronous mode (like IRC) but users viewed all the characters you typed instead of every line or having a 'Send' button: this is a really stupid design decision for two reasons: 1) it use lots of bandwith 2) think if you were discussing with your boss how much you'd *hate* this feature.

As for this kind of decision is made by a CEO or not, I'd answer: it depends. If the CEO is Steve Jobs he would have made this decision (and perhaps fired the one who chose this design) if the CEO is the typical CEO, yes you're right.

> And don't think that picking winners and losers is easy. Well, it's easy to *do*, but very hard to do *right*. And, FWIW, I think Larry is doing a great job.

"great job"? Do you remember Google Wave?
A *very poor* job here..
Who made the stupid decision to use letter-by-letter in the synchronous mode instead of line-by-line?

Huh, sorry but I think that your "analysis" was worthless: there is a big difference between communist theory and communism-applied-in-the-real-world: there is the same difference between capitalism in theory and capitalism in the real world..

I remember watching stargate (the movie): they send a robot which sends a beacon signal through a warp gate and then they immediately receive a signal saying that the robot is 10 light-years away, instead of having to wait 10 years..

Even though I didn't care about 'scientific realism' in the movie, my brain told me 'this is wrong' and it "took me out" of the movie, so scientific realism isn't a big issue unless it kills your enjoyement of the movie..

>[cut] with a minimum use of Xrender to stitch them together.

Which is a very good way to use XRender: use the glyph cache in the server for efficient text rendering, for the background render locally and push the pixmap (which could be easily compressed in case of WAN access) to the server and stich everything together.
And you can't do this with Wayland (no drawing API..).

>Even by Qt4.5, they found out that their pure software backend (Raster) was fast than the XRender one (Native).

The benchmark you've linked is a local benchmark, irrelevant for network rendering.

> - XRender allows you to do a lot of things "efficiently" but we can do them more efficiently with direct or client side rendering and just push a shared memory buffer to the server.

More efficiently? Only locally, remotely it depends on a lot of things (bandwith, latency).

> Qt5 will not use XRender.

I'm not so sure: this webpage list XRender http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5.0/qtdoc/requirements-x11.html

> unless you're satisfied with simply calling the Wayland protocol "X12" and be done with it.

You cannot call Wayland X12: X is a drawing protocol, Wayland isn't: it only provides buffers.

And I disagree that an X12 protocol 'woud look awfully like Wayland':
-with X you know where your pixels are going on the screen, with Wayland you don't!
-with X (XRender), to draw text efficiently you can have a glyph cache managed by the X server, with Wayland you cannot have this.

On X, you can have a Gnome application running on KDE and vice versa, will this also be the case when the desktops will use Wayland?
Or do you have to use XWayland to ensure that this interoperability still works?

> Instead it has twice the number of general purpose registers (31) with twice the size (64 bit) than that of the previous ARMv7 architecture.
Increasing the number of register really helped the x86 because it had so few to begin with, for the ARM the effect will be much less important, it'll help mostly floating point processing code.

> and also saves a bit on memory accesses, which are horribly slow.
This depends on what you're doing, going from 32bit to 64bit can also mean that the memory used by your pointers is multiplied by two, reducing the caches efficiency and increasing the number of main memory(slow) accesses..

>False positive = you die

Well with regular guns, you die too in this case with a far higher probability!

>False negative = you die

Only in the case that firing the gun will save you but threatening someone with a gun (which looks to be functional even if it isn't) won't.
Possible but far from 100% of the case.

> - What about client application that freeze: Can't move the window because the decoration is done by the client?

I'm not sure about your other points but this one isn't a real issue:
1) Weston the "toy" display server which is designed with CSD ping the client and take over the window in this case.
2) KWin devs plans to use server side decoration over Wayland: Wayland doesn't require CSD.

>Except if you have very little bandwidth it is absolutely horrible

Some applications like viewing remotely video needs a lot of bandwidth, there's no way around that, so they don't matter for 'remote display'.
*But* there a lot of applications which can be displayed remotely with very little bandwith as they mainly display text.
With NX/X11/XRender, one can efficiently remotely display those kind of applications, with Wayland there are talks about compressing the buffer delta between a proxy-server and a remote server, it sounds that this would use a lot of CPU and adds latency, but we'll have to wait for the real implementation (if it ever happen) before being able to do a real comparison.
There could be uncompressed remote access also, but it may not be very good in a WAN..

> Nuclear reactors represent astonishing amounts of wealth and coordination. It is a hallmark of advanced nations that such things are created.

Except for one "little detail": creating nuclears reactors are one piece of a chain: mining ore, refining, disposing of the combustible and disassembling the nuclear reactor itself.
And in France, *we haven't dissambled our unused nuclear reactors*.
So I wouldn't call this a success .. for now!

>> At no time in our history would guns have helped
> that's alright; to us, you look crazy for allowing guns to be banned.

Well at least we've got much fewer successful suicide!

>> At no time in our history would guns have helped us rise up against the government either.
>
> Oh ho ho. That's a good one. Are you really that ignorant of your own history, or do you seriously need a list of examples where it actually happened? I'll give you the first one for free - France, 1789.

Uh? Why is this bullshit moderated as informative?
The French revolution did won even though those who rebelled didn't have guns (or very few)..

More guns may have helped the revolution but remember that if paysants had more guns, the counter-revolutionaries paysants ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chouannerie ) would *also* have had more guns (not that both sides needed more guns to make it a bloody awful massacre)..