I agree in that a pure framework is just a design pattern and that would be easy to implement. The really useful part of these frameworks is likely the libraries they are bundled with. Sure, somebody with the right experience can duplicate all the work of another person but there's obviously the problem of the duplicate of effort and the waste of time. In the case of code that have many users it is also benefiting from the experience of a large community. If the framework/library is open source there's really nothing preventing you from become familiar with the parts of the code you use. When it comes down to it I don't think it's really a matter of developer experience so much as the time it takes to learn another person's code and managing the risks of that external code changing. Really it seems there are benefits to each approach but certainly there are many benefits to using community developed code.
What do the french say about Mormonism?
I don't know if the French government took a stand again against the Mormons but they were singling out Jehovah's Witness.
In 1998, the government of France imposed a 60% tax on religious offerings given by Jehovah's Witnesses to their organization, the local branch of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society (WTS). A lien has also been established against their headquarters and printing plant. The intent appears to be to bankrupt the group. The Interior Ministry has refused to register the Temoins de Jehovah as an "association cultuelle" or "association culte." Thus they assert that member's contributions are taxable at the normal 60% rate for gifts in that country, under a 1992 law. The government has calculated that 303 million in French Francs ($50 million in US funds) is owed to the government. This represents 150 million in tax plus 60% in penalty charges and interest). This represents taxes not collected for the past 5 years. The Minister of Finance has refused to confirm this assessment, citing the confidential nature of the information. They do acknowledge that negotiations continue with the WTS.
To be fair to the Wayland developers they are trying to make a protocol that is optimized for today's needs. X11 can be shoehorned into having some of the same functions but things are harder to implement and often have additional overhead in X11 that does not exist with Wayland.
The project leader for Wayland has argued that many things about X cannot be fixed without major protocol changes. The Wayland model is so radically different they cannot justify calling it X12 or X13.
Client / Server is fundamental to thin clients.
There's a vnc/rdp client is about as thin as you get. Wayland compositors can do this. What else is needed?
The client/server model is not a Wayland problem.
From presentations I've seen from the developers the talking points I've heard are:
* X11's client/server protocol has lots of round-trips that make remote applications respond slowly.
* X11 has a client/server model but newer toolkits end up transferring bitmaps over the wire and in this case the RDP/vnc is better or at least no worse.
* If an X11-like client/server protocol is desired the toolkits are in a better position to implement something X11-like that sends drawing instructions over the wire.
TFA - so does KDE 4.10 already run on Wayland? Or will it be KDE 5.x? That thing seems to need Wayland as well - not just Plasma.
This experimental backend is in KDE 4.11. Martin Gräßlin says that X11 clients communicate with KWin and Kwin renders them to the running wayland compositor, weston. Other than the input limitation mentioned in the summary the other problem is that Kwin cannot yet act as a wayland compositor itself and cannot manage wayland clients. I guess if you launched a wayland client in this environment you would have to have weston manage it for you.
“Good Morning, Dr. Chandra. I’m ready for my first lesson now.”
That didn't exactly end well for the humans.