Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

XWayland 2D Performance Appears Better Than XMir

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by TheOne View Post
    In any case the tests presented on this article kind of prove that XMir is more advanced than XWayland (since XMir can run 3D applications and some more tests than XWayland can't do), the canonical developers just need to iron out the performance issues that they seem to be already aware of.
    Xmir is just a 1-to-1 copy of Xwayland, with a Mir-backend stitched on, so there's no way it's "more advanced". Canonical isn't able to do their own code, all they're capable of is ripping off others and taking the credit...

    You're being silly, I could just as well say this article proves Wayland is more advanced than Mir (which is actually true, since it's not designed only for one desktop environment but instead can run everywhere).

    Comment


    • #32
      3d!!

      But why does 3d work out of the box on XMir and XWayland still doesn't have it working?

      That seems huge to me.. especially cause I thought XMir was based on XWayland.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by gQuigs View Post
        But why does 3d work out of the box on XMir and XWayland still doesn't have it working?

        That seems huge to me.. especially cause I thought XMir was based on XWayland.
        It's not huge, there's no official release of any distro running XWayland yet, and Xwayland hasn't yet been integrated into Xorg. This is a test by one individual, who may not have been able (or had the time) to configure the 3d settings properly, and it says nothing of the ability to actually run OpenGL on Xwayland.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Ericg View Post
          Because we HAVE a replacement, its Wayland. Canonical just made MIR because their corporate interests demand that they have sole and absolute control over their entire stack. I'm seriously waiting for Ubuntu to become the new Android-- custom kernel, custom userspace, custom API's, that just resyncs with upstream once a year or once every 2 years.
          We don't. Its not there yet. .. No plans for Fedora, OpenSuSE, Ubuntu, Debian, etc. switching to Wayland or XWayland right now, or before october...

          Race is ON. NOT FINISHED.
          (And whole code is GPL3, so Canonical CANN'T control Mir...)

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by przemoli View Post
            We don't. Its not there yet. .. No plans for Fedora, OpenSuSE, Ubuntu, Debian, etc. switching to Wayland or XWayland right now, or before october...

            Race is ON. NOT FINISHED.
            (And whole code is GPL3, so Canonical CANN'T control Mir...)
            Fedora and gnome have plans to switch to wayland on a similar timeframe as ubuntu's switch to mir: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipe...ch/180546.html

            Also its extremely naive to think that just because the code is GPL3 that canonical cannot "control" mir.

            I don't know KDE's exact plans, but the soon to be released KDE 4.11's kwin does have experimental wayland support. The upstream desktops are making good progress on porting to wayland, the distros will follow along once the desktops fully support it. Canonical's one advantage is that they control both unity and mir, so they can "force" ubuntu's adoption of mir a little quicker, but the way things are going I really don't think mir will be adopted that much quicker than wayland, if even quicker at all. Anyway, all this furvor about which is "first" is pretty absurd. Doing things right is better than doing things "fast". Many people also seem to forget that mir would not be anywhere NEAR where it is if it wasn't for the work wayland and upstream had already done with xwayland, EGL drivers etc... Just because canonical swooped in at the last second and built their own solution on what upstream had already been working on for some time does not mean mir is some sort of rapidly developed technical marvel.
            Last edited by bwat47; 06-30-2013, 04:24 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by przemoli View Post
              (And whole code is GPL3, so Canonical CANN'T control Mir...)
              Except there appear to be 0 people willing to use a GPL3 display server.

              BSDs won't.
              Smartphone manufacturers won't.
              Other embedded device manufacturers won't.
              KDE won't.

              Not sure about GNOME3 or XFCE, but i bet they aren't crazy about it either.

              Which means Canonical does control Mir, because they're the only ones who can re-release it in a license that people will use.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by dee. View Post
                Xmir is just a 1-to-1 copy of Xwayland, with a Mir-backend stitched on, so there's no way it's "more advanced". Canonical isn't able to do their own code, all they're capable of is ripping off others and taking the credit...

                You're being silly, I could just as well say this article proves Wayland is more advanced than Mir (which is actually true, since it's not designed only for one desktop environment but instead can run everywhere).
                What I mean with more advanced is that well, XWayland segfaulted to the guy doing some of the tests where XMir ran fine like 3D as someone else mentioned. So there is a big chance that canonical developers improved XWayland while doing the refactory to xMir. There is also the fact that those test the guy did where running Wayland over Weston and just applications using XWayland instead of using XWayland to run an entire DE so that would actually run faster than what canonical guys are offering with XMir and a full Desktop Environment for backward compatibility issues of DE still running on X.

                There could also be a slight chance that running Wayland Weston and XWayland with 3D applications isn't mature yet and the same could apply to Mir. Anyways this tests aren't the same to not say fair. We need a pure XWayland vs XMir test, both running an entire Desktop environment.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by TheOne View Post
                  We need a pure XWayland vs XMir test, both running an entire Desktop environment.
                  Nope. XWayland (and as a clone of it this should apply to XMir also) was never intended to run a whole DE, its purpose is to run X applications on a Wayland compositor. What we need is a benchmark running native compositors on Mir and Wayland, together with testing X applications using XWayland/XMir in that configuration.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by przemoli View Post
                    Why on earth would you bash someone for REPLACING X.org??? ??? ???
                    Except that Mir, if anything, makes X.org even more widespread than it would normally be. Applications that need direct access to the server will now target X and not Wayland.

                    Originally posted by przemoli View Post
                    We don't. Its not there yet. .. No plans for Fedora, OpenSuSE, Ubuntu, Debian, etc. switching to Wayland or XWayland right now, or before october...

                    Race is ON. NOT FINISHED.
                    (And whole code is GPL3, so Canonical CANN'T control Mir...)
                    There is no race. The only race here is Canonical's race against the LTS deadline.

                    And the whole code is GPLv3, except to Canonical, which means they can control it.

                    Originally posted by TheOne View Post
                    What I mean with more advanced is that well, XWayland segfaulted to the guy doing some of the tests where XMir ran fine like 3D as someone else mentioned. So there is a big chance that canonical developers improved XWayland while doing the refactory to xMir.
                    It's just as likely that the XMir PPA has everything preconfigured, while there is no such thing for XWayland yet.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                      It's just as likely that the XMir PPA has everything preconfigured, while there is no such thing for XWayland yet.
                      True, that could be another factor.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by rvalles View Post
                        There's a major flaw with that list. The man-hour myth. Quickly and High Quality is not possible. It doesn't matter how much money is thrown at it. Mir is going to show us that.
                        That myth is only about the details of taking a "serial" task and trying to do it quicker. Development of larger systems is often a highly parallel task. That is, you can have someone work on getting 3D accel in XWayland while someone different works on input method management and so on. You can do a decent number of things at once in some software development if only you can afford to pay enough people (FOSS does not, of course, and save for a few exceptional cases like the Linux kernel where there's a large amount of commercial interest, FOSS projects are usually severely understaffed - people with the requisite skill generally want to get paid highly for it and then aren't interested in doing hobby work in their off time when they have spouses, children, and social lives to look after besides their 40+ hour work-weeks).

                        It's true that there is a maximum reasonable staffing count for a project. The X/Mesa/Wayland guys have already said they're not there yet by any stretch. Mir may be hitting that max depending on how much money Canonical is throwing at it and how much of the low-level pieces of the stack they're relying on other parties to finish. In turn, that means Mir may develop quicker, but at increased cost.

                        Or they might be having a handful of unskilled cheap laborers working ridiculous hours on it so they're missing out on quality but keeping it cheap. This is what many game publishers try to force dev companies do, for example; underpay and overwork developers in hopes of keeping big games at sub-$10m budgets. The really good (high quality) games typically have either a many-year development cycles a good amount of highly-paid developers. Or both. And then they clock in at $20m, $80m, $150m, or more, once accounting for marketing and distribution.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by elanthis View Post
                          It's true that there is a maximum reasonable staffing count for a project. The X/Mesa/Wayland guys have already said they're not there yet by any stretch. Mir may be hitting that max depending on how much money Canonical is throwing at it and how much of the low-level pieces of the stack they're relying on other parties to finish. In turn, that means Mir may develop quicker, but at increased cost.
                          There were 25 contributors to Mir in the last year. And 35 to Wayland, 59 to Weston. So I highly doubt that Mir is well-staffed.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                            There were 25 contributors to Mir in the last year. And 35 to Wayland, 59 to Weston. So I highly doubt that Mir is well-staffed.
                            Yeah, but you have to take into account how much of those wayland/weston contributors are developing full time.
                            Last edited by TheOne; 06-30-2013, 05:31 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by nerdopolis View Post
                              Keep in mind that as far as I can tell xmir and xwayland are somewhat different.

                              xmir seems to me like its a fullscreen x server, that runs a full x session, including a full X window manager like compiz, that is forwarded to display on a mir server, and doesn't seem integrated.

                              xwayland on the other hand is ROOTLESS, in which x programs run, and Weston has its own miniature window manager that integrates the X apps with the wayland apps.
                              Not really... they're both pretty much equivalent (indeed, I think Xmir was originally based on the Xwayland code). Both are *intended* for running rootless, providing long-term compatibility for X applications that aren't ported to run natively. The difference is in the short term - in Weston, Wayland already has a native (if minimal) desktop, so apps can run in rootless mode. On Mir, there's no native desktop yet, so they have to run an X-based desktop as a full-screen application via Xmir.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by phoen1x View Post
                                What's up with all these phoronix Mir hype "news" like every damn day?
                                Advertising revenue, of course.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X