On 09/01/2024 02:08, Rich wrote:
..
>
> Where X's network transparency becomes very useful is not in trying to
> be a thin client to a remote fat desktop, but instead it is useful when
> running your full desktop locally, then using X remote to run specific
> X programs on specific remote machines, all while their windows appear
> locally on your local desktop system.
>
> I.e., to use X to run programs than need GUI's remotely in much the
> same way that ssh allows you to run CLI programs on remote systems, yet
> see their output appear locally.
>

Nowadays, Web servers and browsers allow us to achieve this result.

On 09/01/2024 09:25, Pancho wrote:
> On 09/01/2024 02:08, Rich wrote:
> .
>>
>> Where X's network transparency becomes very useful is not in trying to
>> be a thin client to a remote fat desktop, but instead it is useful when
>> running your full desktop locally, then using X remote to run specific
>> X programs on specific remote machines, all while their windows appear
>> locally on your local desktop system.
>>
>> I.e., to use X to run programs than need GUI's remotely in much the
>> same way that ssh allows you to run CLI programs on remote systems, yet
>> see their output appear locally.
>>
>
> Nowadays, Web servers and browsers allow us to achieve this result.
>
Yes. The ability to have a cross platform smart GUI client is massive.
Nearly all my projects involve one. And it's secure because the
interface to the OS and server file system is custom: you can't *in
general* compromise it from the browser (unless you are a lazy stupid
programmer).

Horses for courses, but yes, remote accessibility is something X does.
--
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over
the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that
authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

Frédéric Bastiat

immibis wrote:

> It's not like Nvidia has any obligation to support non-Windows
> platforms. We wish they would, but they don't have to.

A refusal to tell how the devices they create work, holding all those who
use them hostage to their own code, is a hostile and immoral business
tactic.

--
Blue-Maned_Hawk│shortens to Hawk│/
blu.mɛin.dÊ°ak/│he/him/his/himself/
Mr.
blue-maned_hawk.srht.site
Where there is nuance, there is jank.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 08/01/2024 16:44, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
>> Wayland has already obsolesced X11 and will eventually completely
>> eliminate it everywhere. There is no stopping this.
>>
> As I said elsewhere, 'proof by assertion' is not an argument I consider
> to be valid

Wayland and X11 fill the same niche. Wayland is a better-designed
protocol than X11: see, for instance, its much simpler design and its
explicit support of protocol extensions. Wayland is actively maintained;
X11 cannot reasonably be considered to be so.

All of this points as evidence to Wayland obsolescing X11.

--
Blue-Maned_Hawk│shortens to Hawk│/
blu.mɛin.dÊ°ak/│he/him/his/himself/
Mr.
blue-maned_hawk.srht.site
Wired up in a totally-not-sketchy fashion!

Marco Moock wrote:

> Many systems still run X11

Then those systems are obsolete and should be replaced.

> and the nvidia blob doesn't support it (yet).

That is the fault of nvidia, not the fault of Wayland. That stalemate
will continue until it stops.

--
Blue-Maned_Hawk│shortens to Hawk│/
blu.mɛin.dÊ°ak/│he/him/his/himself/
Mr.
blue-maned_hawk.srht.site
PIDGEONS!

John McCue wrote:

> This would be necessary for people that need to admin proprietary UNIX
> Systems. Where I work, on AIX, there are a couple of proprietary admin
> tools that require X-forwarding. So without X-forwarding on Wayland,
> people will need to go back to Windows. Windows has that ability via a
> third party utility.

There is nothing inherent to Wayland that would prevent the construction
of such a system in a way that would run under it. However, it does sound
like there's a deeper problem here of needing to admin proprietary unices
in the first place.

--
Blue-Maned_Hawk│shortens to Hawk│/
blu.mɛin.dÊ°ak/│he/him/his/himself/
Mr.
blue-maned_hawk.srht.site
In a time before time, somebody attacked somebody.

immibis wrote:

> Did you know that Wayland clients aren't allowed to know or set their
> window coordinates on the screen?

There are extensions to the protocol to support that. (One of the
obnoxious things that Wayland does is use the nomenclature of “extension”
to refer to everything that's not in the base protocol, regardless of
whether it's so well-adopted as to for-all-intents-and-purposes be a core
part of Wayland.) Might ask i you what purpose for which the usefulness
of such things would be?

--
Blue-Maned_Hawk│shortens to Hawk│/
blu.mɛin.dÊ°ak/│he/him/his/himself/
Mr.
blue-maned_hawk.srht.site
Xylem: a word worth a nearly miraculous seventeen points in Scrabble.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> In every case where I might have wanted to use it, the overhead of
> transmitting graphics over the network killed it. Far easier to send the
> underlying data over the network and have a fat graphics client like a
> web browser at the other end...

That sounds to me like you should be fighting for social reform so that
the powerful hardware necessary for network transmission of graphics is
available to everybody.

--
Blue-Maned_Hawk│shortens to Hawk│/
blu.mɛin.dÊ°ak/│he/him/his/himself/
Mr.
blue-maned_hawk.srht.site
If you're reading this, you have our apologies.

Pancho wrote:

> Nowadays, Web servers and browsers allow us to achieve this result.

Careful now. Down that path of thinking one finds a dystopian world where
you own nothing, and everything you could want to own is stored on the
computers of the rich for them to extort you over. Essentially,
Chromebooks.

--
Blue-Maned_Hawk│shortens to Hawk│/
blu.mɛin.dÊ°ak/│he/him/his/himself/
Mr.
blue-maned_hawk.srht.site
foldable (once)

David W. Hodgins wrote:

> Both xorg and wayland run under X11.
>
> It's xorg that is being replaced by wayland.

That's not remotely true. Wayland is replacing X11, the protocol. There
are multiple implementations of the Wayland protocol, just as Xorg is only
one implementation of the X11 protocol.

> Another example of a feature I find missing in wayland is the redshift.
> As xorg allows any application to access or modify other applications
> output,
> while wayland does not, redshift only works on xorg.

I completely agree that the inability to fuck with foreign windows is a
serious error in the design of Wayland. I hope that some sort of
extension to fix this is in the works.

--
Blue-Maned_Hawk│shortens to Hawk│/
blu.mɛin.dÊ°ak/│he/him/his/himself/
Mr.
blue-maned_hawk.srht.site
Money can buy eggs!

Am 09.01.2024 um 12:43:23 Uhr schrieb Blue-Maned_Hawk:

> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> > On 08/01/2024 16:44, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
> >> Wayland has already obsolesced X11 and will eventually completely
> >> eliminate it everywhere. There is no stopping this.
> >>
> > As I said elsewhere, 'proof by assertion' is not an argument I
> > consider to be valid
>
> Wayland and X11 fill the same niche. Wayland is a better-designed
> protocol than X11: see, for instance, its much simpler design and
> its explicit support of protocol extensions. Wayland is actively
> maintained; X11 cannot reasonably be considered to be so.

New versions were recently released. Isn't that a proof that it is
still developed?

> All of this points as evidence to Wayland obsolescing X11.

What can the people who need X11-exclusive features do?

On 09/01/2024 12:36, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
> immibis wrote:
>
>> It's not like Nvidia has any obligation to support non-Windows
>> platforms. We wish they would, but they don't have to.
>
> A refusal to tell how the devices they create work, holding all those who
> use them hostage to their own code, is a hostile and immoral business
> tactic.
>
>
Id rather say it was just plain dumb. A decision made by someone 'in
case it tells our rivals how to do what we do' that really isn't valid
at all, since their rivals will

(a) Have spies working in Nvidia
(b) probably have chip engineers grinding the tops off to find out, anyway.

>

--
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

― Confucius

On 09/01/2024 12:43, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 08/01/2024 16:44, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
>>> Wayland has already obsolesced X11 and will eventually completely
>>> eliminate it everywhere. There is no stopping this.
>>>
>> As I said elsewhere, 'proof by assertion' is not an argument I consider
>> to be valid
>
> Wayland and X11 fill the same niche. Wayland is a better-designed
> protocol than X11: see, for instance, its much simpler design and its
> explicit support of protocol extensions. Wayland is actively maintained;
> X11 cannot reasonably be considered to be so.
>
> All of this points as evidence to Wayland obsolescing X11.
>
The verb is 'obsolete' There is no verb from 'obsolescent'

>
>

--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> writes:
> Am 09.01.2024 um 12:43:23 Uhr schrieb Blue-Maned_Hawk:
>
>> All of this points as evidence to Wayland obsolescing X11.
> What can the people who need X11-exclusive features do?

Begin preparations for familiarising themselves with the X11 build
process...

On 09/01/2024 13:18, Marco Moock wrote:
> Am 09.01.2024 um 12:43:23 Uhr schrieb Blue-Maned_Hawk:
>
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/01/2024 16:44, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
>>>> Wayland has already obsolesced X11 and will eventually completely
>>>> eliminate it everywhere. There is no stopping this.
>>>>
>>> As I said elsewhere, 'proof by assertion' is not an argument I
>>> consider to be valid
>>
>> Wayland and X11 fill the same niche. Wayland is a better-designed
>> protocol than X11: see, for instance, its much simpler design and
>> its explicit support of protocol extensions. Wayland is actively
>> maintained; X11 cannot reasonably be considered to be so.
>
> New versions were recently released. Isn't that a proof that it is
> still developed?
>
>> All of this points as evidence to Wayland obsolescing X11.
>
> What can the people who need X11-exclusive features do?
>
Run X11 over the top of Wayland.

--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

On 09/01/2024 13:09, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
> Pancho wrote:
>
>> Nowadays, Web servers and browsers allow us to achieve this result.
>
> Careful now. Down that path of thinking one finds a dystopian world where
> you own nothing, and everything you could want to own is stored on the
> computers of the rich for them to extort you over. Essentially,
> Chromebooks.
>
>
>
Nothing stops ypu owning a web server any more than nothing stops you
owning an X server

I own many web servers

--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

On 09/01/2024 13:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> I own many web servers
>

+1, even my electric blanket has its own LAN only web server.

On 09/01/2024 14:58, Pancho wrote:
> On 09/01/2024 13:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> I own many web servers
>>
>
> +1, even my electric blanket has its own LAN only web server.

I was meaning ones you had built yourself...

--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

On 09/01/2024 15:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 09/01/2024 14:58, Pancho wrote:
>> On 09/01/2024 13:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> I own many web servers
>>>
>>
>> +1, even my electric blanket has its own LAN only web server.
>
> I was meaning ones you had built yourself...
>

I've built web sites, and web services but never an actual web server.

On 09/01/2024 15:42, Pancho wrote:
> On 09/01/2024 15:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 09/01/2024 14:58, Pancho wrote:
>>> On 09/01/2024 13:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> I own many web servers
>>>>
>>>
>>> +1, even my electric blanket has its own LAN only web server.
>>
>> I was meaning ones you had built yourself...
>>
>
> I've built web sites, and web services but never an actual web server.

I compiled the first Apache server ever deployed in the UK.

Not sure if that counts as 'building'

--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

On 2024-01-08, Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:

> Am 08.01.2024 um 16:58:35 Uhr schrieb John McCue:
>
>> Agree, but I wish the Linux Foundation would get b**ls
>> and forbid Nvidia usage in Linux until Nvidia opens up
>> their GPUs.
>
> How is that compatible with the GPLv2?
>
> As long as you don't include it directly in the kernel (it is a module
> that a user can add that comes from a different source), it is legal to
> use it.
> It is also the user's decision to use it or use nouveau instead.
>
> Most distributions ship nouveau by default, but offer an option to
> install the blob from their non-free repo.

And that's as it should be. The nouveau driver has a tendency
to lock up on my machines, while the Nvidia blob is quite solid.
Yes, it would be nice if Nvidia released their specifications.
It would also be nice if nouveau didn't lock up on my machines.
This way we have a choice.

But getting back to the original topic, I don't use remote graphics
that often, but when I do I really like it - enough that I wouldn't
switch to anything that takes it away. No, I'm not playing video
games or watching videos remotely - but being to run Thunderbird
to remotely check my e-mail is really nice and doesn't need
lightning-fast graphics.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | The Internet is like a big city:
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | it has plenty of bright lights and
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | excitement, but also dark alleys
/ \ if you read it the right way. | down which the unwary get mugged.

On 2024-01-08, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Looking at it fairly cursorily, it looks like a Wayland core with an x
> windows shim *if needed* is actually a better way to go long term, as
> X-windows (like PostScript) is full of code that 99% of people never use.
>
> So on the surface it looks like Wayland would be faster and use a lot
> less memory.
>
> I am sure however that there are hidden gotchas.
>
> So: interested to hear from everyone.
>

I am for wayland 100% being using it along with sway for many years
used to have run along a i3 under xorg, then moved 100% to it last year
and now that all games work on steam/proton and lutris I have no
issues whatsoever it brings a lot of good features to GNU/Linux
and yes there are some hurdles specially 3-4 years a go but now..
is all getting iron out.

Happy Hacking
ReK2

--
- {gemini,https}://{,rek2.}hispagatos.org - mastodon: @rek2@hispagatos.space
- [https|gemini]://2600.Madrid - https://hispagatos.space/@rek2
- https://keyoxide.org/A31C7CE19D9C58084EA42BA26C0B0D11E9303EC5

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 09/01/2024 13:18, Marco Moock wrote:
>> What can the people who need X11-exclusive features do?
>>
> Run X11 over the top of Wayland.

On the contrary, I investigated running Wayland on top of X11 so
that any future Wayland-only programs that I need to use (Firefox,
most likely, if it lasts long enough) can run in an X window which
displays an entire Wayland session. It appears easily achieveable,
though maybe only with software graphics rendering, which I don't
mind.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _# | Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups |

On 2024-01-09, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 09/01/2024 12:36, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
>
>> immibis wrote:
>>
>>> It's not like Nvidia has any obligation to support non-Windows
>>> platforms. We wish they would, but they don't have to.
>>
>> A refusal to tell how the devices they create work, holding all those who
>> use them hostage to their own code, is a hostile and immoral business
>> tactic.
>
> Id rather say it was just plain dumb. A decision made by someone 'in
> case it tells our rivals how to do what we do' that really isn't valid
> at all, since their rivals will
>
> (a) Have spies working in Nvidia
> (b) probably have chip engineers grinding the tops off to find out, anyway.

Perhaps, but it'll take competitors a year or so to reverse-engineer
your proprietary bits, and until then you have the market to yourself.
At that point, you come out with a new proprietary protocol. Lather,
rinse, repeat.

It's not dumb, it's a calculated marketing decision. And it's not new;
IBM was doing it in the '60s and '70s.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | The Internet is like a big city:
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | it has plenty of bright lights and
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | excitement, but also dark alleys
/ \ if you read it the right way. | down which the unwary get mugged.

Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> wrote:
> On 2024-01-08, immibis <news@immibis.com> wrote:
>> On 1/8/24 13:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> Looking at it fairly cursorily, it looks like a Wayland core with an x
>>> windows shim *if needed* is actually a better way to go long term, as
>>> X-windows (like PostScript) is full of code that 99% of people never use.
>>
>> I fear that code is there for a reason, and Wayland throws the baby out
>> with the bathwater.
>>
>> Did you know that Wayland clients aren't allowed to know or set their
>> window coordinates on the screen?
>
> Are the rumors true that Wayland is hard-limited to the Doze-like
> focus-on-top-window-only restriction?

I've heard this same rumor somewhere as well. I do not have any
wayland systems with which to confirm it as of yet.

> Having used X since the 1980s, I strongly prefer
> focus-follows-mouse and not click-to-both-raise-and-focus.
>
> One of the _BIG_ usability advantages of X vs. Doze is X allows
> keyboard focus on a non-top-most window. That makes it possible
> to type into a window that is mostly obscured. It's a royal pain
> to not have that ability on the Doze laptop I have to use for
> work.

In full agreement. I use the ability to type into a partly obscured
window constantly. And the "window with keyboard focus must be on top"
Doze mis-feature is a constant source of irritation on the work laptop
here as well.