So....I wonder if we knew "all" of pi, it could be used to represent all the data in the universe. The we'd just need the pointers to pick bits of data out of it. cool...

Basic question on RDP: can it support sending only one window instead of a desktop? I seem to remember hearing it could, but haven't ran across how to do it without involving Citrix or some other software...

So, Wayland will allow running Wayland apps on a machine with no display and sending the output to a machine with a display? If it does, then I'm more interested. Everything I read so far says it will not be able to do that, or will require some kind of dummy Wayland desktop to be running on the same machine with the app...

Or a sign of a good design, Just a thought...

How does the implementation reflect on my comment? Not disagreeing, just honestly wondering how your comment relates to mine...

No it doesn't. no it's not. No it's not, no it's not. And, no it can't. (all you are solving is half of what X11 can do: running a remote app on a local screen. The other half is missing.)

People claiming vnc/RDP functionality is the same as X11 remote display/network transparency are extremely uninformed.

using caps since no one seems to get it no matter how it's worded...sign of frustration at the reading incomprehension of lots of posters

Not if Wayland replaces Xorg, which seems to be the goal of the project. IF someone, anyone, can tell me I will be able to run a "Wayland app" from one machine to another screen, then fine. Haven't heard that yet. I've been told that you can do this, but the answer always involves thigns that trick the app in displaying to something that can be copied over the network like I deal with in Windows. This is not the funtionality I have now and which I don't want to give up.

If VNC/RDP is you answer to what X11 does, you don't know what X11 does. X11 network function is much better and more useful than those kinds of remote access. I use both everyday and I can tell you X11 remote display is easier, better designed and will only be more useful (given proliferation of screens to display on like phones, tablets, TV's) as time goes on. Do I wish X11 was more effieicient? yes. Does Wayland offer the function I need? No. So, I'll stick to X11 as long as Wayland doesn't cause X11 to go away, and I hope Wayland goes away just because of the threat it poses in making X11 go away.

few != not important
a small percentage of people in the US ever use 911...so get rid of it?
and for all those who say X11 is crufty and has lots of bad code in it: YES! but, don't mix/confuse the implementation with the feature. It's the feature that is important, the X11 implementation needs some work, but it functions fine now AND NO OTHER REPLACEMENT WINDOW SYSTEM IS OFFERING IT!

A)

no question. I use the code, they make it. car analogy: who understands a car better (what it should do and how): the engineer or the driver?

"FOSS operating systems aren't going to fix that problem. Even RHEL WS, CENTOS, SLED, and Ubuntu LTS make you upgrade sooner than 10 years. I suppose you could pay out the wazoo to get someone to fork them and backport patches forever, but that's a losing game too. A better phrasing might be"

On this, I've always been curious: Wouldn't your average company pay through the wazoo (to a third party or in IT budget) if it meant they could keep their old apps, infrastructure and the same look and feel for their users? I always think it's the same money either way: pay MS as opposed to pay for the code maintenance, but it's all theory to me since I know of no concrete facts to say it is the same.

Would someone PLEASE run an ad campaign that uses this to push open source? This is one of the main reasons source code should come with the software you buy: you're not tied to one vendor. (and no, I don't think the source should be in the wild/public in every case...but the source should be part of you get when you put down money)
I'm always disappointed that someone doesn't put out a matching message to business when MS pushes this: "you know how MS is pushing you to mess with all your PC's again? If you had the code along with the software, you could hire another company to keep XP running/patched for you"
Just always seems like a missed opportunity...

which assumes the next-layer-up universe running the sim has comparable limits we can trigger...
but point was more, when the sim we live it hits any snag from the point of view of those running it, it can just be stopped until a work-around is found...and may have happened continuously since the beginning of the run...we wouldn't be able to tell. Darwinism kinda thinking tends to make me think, any way to break it has already happened and we're living the patched results (i.e. we're the results of the successful version of code). Also useful to consider we may not be in the best simulator...for all we know we're in some script kiddies broken down PC as a lark...working as hard as we can to hit a a limit may not get us much :)

Or, they save state, halt, and we wait (unknowing as we are halted) until a hardware upgrade is affordable.

This comment I see a lot and don't understand. Why is that bad in and of itself? a committee or other kind of group of people is better how exactly? What makes a country so special?