Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 10th Feb 2012 23:46 UTC
X11, Window Managers "This is the first real release of Wayland and Weston. Wayland is the protocol and IPC mechanism while Weston is the reference compositor implementation. The 0.85 branch in both repositories is going to be protocol and interface stable. We have a series of protocol changes on the table before 1.0 but this branch marks a stable point before we jump into that." Change is coming to the Linux world. And yes, I get the irony of using this particular icon, but it's the closest I could find.
Thread beginning with comment 506714
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Wayland icon for OSnews
by diegoviola on Sat 11th Feb 2012 08:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Wayland icon for OSnews"
diegoviola
Member since:
2006-08-15

Not a good looking icon.
However, I am one of the people who wants to see the fall down of X.

Great NEWS.


I think the Wayland logo is great, you don't like the icon or the Wayland logo? Sure the quality is degraded when converted to gif, but that's not my decision, OSnews seems to use gif as their icons.

I've used this as original image source:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Wayland_Logo.svg

Reply Parent Score: 2

Jason Bourne Member since:
2007-06-02

OK, the original has some details that make it better.

For the person who asked if I worked for Canonical, I obviously don't. Does Canonical wants to see the fall down of X? Well, you pretty know well that when X crashes, you lose just about everything you were doing - period. That's what I am talking about.

People keep coming up with this "network transparency" feature, but I don't think it's any applicable or relevant for desktops.

Reply Parent Score: 2

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

For the person who asked if I worked for Canonical, I obviously don't.

Actually, I was being sort of sarcastic.

Well, you pretty know well that when X crashes, you lose just about everything you were doing - period. That's what I am talking about.

Well, true, but I don't honestly don't remember the last time I've seen X crash.... and whenever it did, I was doing something incredibly stupid, and yes I knew it, pushing the disgustingly under-powered machine (1.7GHz P4, 256MB RAM) far past its limits (working with extremely large astronomy TIFF images of insane resolutions). Honestly, in those circumstances, a crash is destined to happen. ;)

However, it's also true that when the OS crashes you lose all of your work. In this case, all operating systems are vulnerable... and I've seen far more of these happen on Windows than X11 crashing on Linux. Even Windows Vista, with SP2. So much for stability, eh? Windows XP before a few service packs also crashed like crazy when trying to do something as simple as download torrents (apparently a shitty, buggy driver, because one of the service packs fixed it and the number of BSODs dropped). Windows 95 and 98... same, frequent crashes. And don't get me started on Windows ME.

People keep coming up with this "network transparency" feature, but I don't think it's any applicable or relevant for desktops.

Why not? I have used it to breathe a bit more life in the above-mentioned computer with 256MB of memory. With it, I was able to ease the transition between the old machine which had all of my files, to the new one which had a dual-core 64-bit processor and 1GB of RAM. I ran OpenBox on the old machine with all of my files on it, but when I needed to use a memory hog of a program (I'm looking at you, Firefox...) I ran it from the machine with a gig of memory. They were both connected to my monitor, so I could use either if I wanted. Eventually, once I got a new external hard drive and all of my files were migrated to it, I was able to retire the old 1.7GHz p4.

Edited 2012-02-13 08:16 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2