Short comment, nothing to respond to other than yes people should. But nice to have you here when these sorts of topics arise.
You sound like you would consider it wasteful. Reactive programming is a paradigm for when views dominate and uses an more sophisticated variant of lazy evaluation to allow for mutable variables that are only fully evaluated when needed, rather than when defined. Lazy is really useful for being able to manipulate indefinite or even infinite data structures without introducing elements of implementation into algorithms. So it makes your code vastly more maintainable but often at the cost of quadratic memory usage.
Apple has consistently been opposed to long term legacy use. Anyone pissed off by this is completely irrational. iPad 1 was an April 2010 device, which Apple had an expected life for of 2-3 years.
You don't like rapid upgrades Microsoft will be happy for your tablet business.
One of the key purposes of Windows 8 was to start raising hardware requirements. Laptops under $250 shouldn't be part of the Windows ecosystem, they shouldn't exist. Microsoft should be glad to lose them. This price cut is going to give a huge advantage to devices under $250 and create a void between $250-400. Bad, bad inconsistent.... If anything they should be doing the opposite. Make Window 8 $150 on cheap devices and maybe free or even subsidize expensive devices. They need to drive their customers up market after almost two decades of driving them downmarket.
No they did all that nonsense to have features like monitoring and recovery that init.d didn't have. If a daemon has problems and needs to restart itself how does it do that? Heck if you really mean init.d and not xinit.d how does a system support triggers for hundreds or thousands of daemons most of which run very infrequently?
The exiting hardware solves existing problems. The biggest new problem we have is decreasing levels of user knowledge about PC paradigms, decreasing computer literacy. That requires the move to newer hardware that is more like smartphones in terms of interface, where the end users are becoming increasing literate. Another example of that is breaking file management that was designed around dual floppies and moving, which requires SSD as being effectively mandatory. Another example is bringing down size and weight which definitely requires hardware and some level of software support as programs need to be efficient per watt.
So you want to solve today's problems you don't target six year ago's hardware.
Well yeah technology has gotten better. In the case of PCs just at a slowing rate.
Supercomputing wasn't stagnant during the 00s.
This is even worse. So you need to have every toolkit installed on both sides to make it work?
Also you are missing my point. Upgrade GTK from one version to another, does it still work?
Both sides are going to need the widget set the application was compiled against. So minor versions will generally be fine but full version numbers you'll need both.
Also, X is a very flexible protocol. Toolkits could already apply deep knowledge if they wanted to and if X is missing something on the server side, this could be added as an extension in a backwards compatible way.
How? The X protocol limits what can be sent and what sorts of queries can be used. It limits things like traffic shaping. There is no way for an X11 app to do a simple request like "do you want me to generate a virtual PDF and send that to you, or do you want the low level print stream to forward to a local printer and if so what format do you want the stream in?"
They want to create another incompatible protocol?
No they want to create several. One per widget set. So Qt/KDE would have one, GTK/Gnome would have one. Then there likely would be others like Enlightenment / EWL. Each protocol is going to be smart about respective applications.
I don't see what you mean by applications and graphics are shared?
Can an application write directly to the graphics buffer or not? If yes you get performance and no network transparency. If no you get network transparency but take a performance hit.
But I have very good performance with 'ssh -X' from home to work so it is working for me and it is very simple.
You aren't getting good efficiency. Good performance is a result of just using a ton of resources. Lots of problems go away if you throw enough hardware at them. SSH will fall apart very quickly if you start not giving it enough resources. More robust protocols will be able to shape traffic more effectively. Try it by limiting traffic on a VM.
Good point that X isn't meaningfully network transparent for most modern GUIs. It is for the old stuff and that will be gone. And I agree 100% that X11's remote is structurally terrible. I don't even think X is all that convenient. In today's Unix world you need built in security and X11 doesn't have that. In today's networking world you need the traffic analyzers to be able to make intelligent choices about packet priorities and X doesn't have any useful information for IP based traffic. So even there it sucks.
No you are missing his point. It is GTK or Qt. So Qt apps do it one way while GTK do it another. Both sides have both. That's not reinventing X11 that's a genuine alternative where each widget set takes advantage of deep knowledge.
They are talking about RDP like design not RDP itself. RDP is designed for Windows. Wayland's RDP is going to be designed for Wayland.
You could achieve everything Wayland does also by extending X without breaking compatibility.
No you can't. Either applications and graphics are shared or they aren't. There are real tradeoffs of one vs. the other. You can't achieve everything, you have to pick.
I know that X can suck when you have low latency connection - but this depends on the application. This is not really a fundamental problem of the X protocol and could be fixed by not using synchronous requests with Xlib.
You mean high latency, and yes this is a fundamental problem of the X protocol. If the X protocol were designed to work well with high latency connections there would be far fewer round trips. Communication would be staged and cached.
X over WAN. You use it over ssh or ipsec. Then there is no security problem.
SSH doesn't know what's going on inside X and the network can't see what's going on inside the ssh session. Which means you get worst possible network performance if you use SSH.
There is going to be X around for years. KDE and Gnome may migrate off to Wayland but that doesn't mean there won't be X11 versions of both for a long time plus older window managers. you are getting what you want.
I'd agree that's a good example of the sort of thing one would do if they started X over again with a similar design.
The people who maintain and adopted the ancient X11 codebase to do as well as it is with modernish GUIs. Yes they are excellent. And certainly they are the best we have.