I'm picturing the harness piece fitting in as simple as take server out of shipping package (already needed) attach barcodes (needed in most cases already) and plug ethernet, power, etc. from back of box to some standard slot-in style connector that matches a connector in the rack (the "harness" add-on" that would be the new task) that takes about 5 minutes. Maybe I'm just under thinking what a harness would need to be.
not addressing if the whole automated DC would be cost effective, just commenting on how to make the cabling work for it in the simplest way I can think of.
Professor Ronald Rael, the head of the project, stated that these materials and the designs they enable will require new IP protections — 'This is going to require some IP protection for designs, so if you design architecture in the computer, you're protected, just as music and movies are.'
Isn't this the same complication that been hashed back and forth for source code on software for years now? Source code is the "design" or the instructions on how to build....the executable is created by automated builder called "compilers" and such....not a new problem just because it involves a 3D printer....
If Kinect is now required (games require it to play or the system errors if it's not plugged in) then it's a no-sale for me. Kinect is interesting tech, but not when hooked up to a MS owned box...especially one that is "always on and ready" .
As far as the rest of the hate, a big part of that comes from Wayland implementing , from a technical standpoint, the kind of windowing environment that a lot of technical people know to be inferior to what we already have. I don't care how good the code is, if the code is doing something that's not worth doing, it's still a bad idea. same with the ease of writing for the new system: I don't care if it's easy as can be and super clean to write apps for it. If the window system isn't doing he right things, then not going to show any kind of support for it. "Hello World" written for the command line is easy and cleaner than a GUI, doesn't make it the best way to write apps.
Why DO cable companies pay for OTA content? What keeps the cable company from sticking an antenna up and just grabbing from the air? I know the fees are standard practice, but I actually started trying to think through what they are buying....and couldn't figure it out.
That said, and I know I'm biased in favor of X, I'm very disappointed in the solution to all the problems in X11 that he detailed. Due to issues with how X handles it's job, the solution has been for years to let the client fix it at their end and use very little of X. Avoid fixing X. The Wayland solution sounds like take that work around and build a new display around it. Not encouraging.
From his description I agree: the X11 code cannot be fixed. But, my impression is that as coders/developers they applied a coders take to the problem and came up with a coders solution: Take the code written app-side as a work around and build a design on it. Reverse engineer a design based on code that exists. That sounds really negative and I know that will raise some bile, especially since the standard answer is "if you think they are wrong, code it yourself". Based on that video, there's no way I could code at his level so there's no ground for me to stand on there.
What makes me comment on this topic is that I like the X11 design/architecture and feel strongly it is more useful now than the alternatives (RDP/VNC/etc.) and will be more useful as time goes on. I would like a designers solution in that fix the design, then work towards getting that design coded. From the sound of things, that would mean dumping backwards compatibility with X11 protocol, but I would still rather loose X to a better design than loose it to what I see in the Wayland design. Unfortunately those who would be able to handle that kind of development look to be focused elsewhere...