Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu Is Going To Deploy Wayland With Unity

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by MaestroMaus View Post
    Monopolise the open source world? Contradiction? How can you monopolise the open source world with open source software?
    what happens -IMO- is that canonicals vision of an OS desktop isn't the same as Gnomes and KDEs

    hence the friction (unity vs shell etc)

    i am pretty sure that if they had the money/manpower they would have created something of their own

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by mirza View Post
      As a Ubuntu user, I optimistically expect Wayland to bring:
      1) Much less RAM consumption per logged user comparing to X/Compiz.
      Maybe...
      2) No flicker in video, switching to login screen, user switching and so on.
      KMS solved this. If it flickers in ubuntu, then they're not doing it right.... or you're using some horrid blob graphics driver. You should see the transitions in Fedora -- it FADES from plymouth into X.
      3) No weird bugs when switching to and from full-screen apps in other resolutions then default (mostly games)
      Why would you want to change resolutions? Make the game scale better and leave it at your panel's native resolution.
      4) Less CPU usage / more battery life
      Doubt it. X really is NOT a CPU hog.
      5) Faster system boot
      REALLY doubt it. X already starts pretty fast, the majority of your boot time is loading the kernel and all your services.... oh, and that terrible blob at the front that sucks up 20-ish seconds... the... BIOS.
      6) Never boot to console as failover - at least for major consumer graphic chips Intel, NV, AMD.
      So... when it fails you want it to just be completely unusable?
      Because there's only two places you can go.... graphical environment, or text console. If the GE fails and you reject the console, you are forced into limbo where nothing will ever do anything at all, and you'll be forced to SSH in to the machine... assuming that the network is working. That sound like a good plan to you? Didn't think so...

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by MaestroMaus View Post
        Monopolise the open source world? Contradiction? How can you monopolise the open source world with open source software?
        That isn't at all a contradiction. Being open source is really of no relevance in determining if something is a monopoly.

        GPL is what helps deal with monopolization (though doesn't necessarily prevent it -- see TiVo, though no longer a monopoly, which is why GPLv3 came about), not open source... because open source code can be distributed with an insane license like... you can look, but you can't touch.

        Given a little creativity, I'm sure you can think of some way to build a monopoly based even on GPLv3 software.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
          REALLY doubt it. X already starts pretty fast
          If you look here, of 40s to start Ubuntu, X.org takes 5, which is not that I can guarantee Wayland will be faster, it is only hope:
          https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BootCharting...20100722-1.png

          Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
          So... when it fails you want it to just be completely unusable?
          Because there's only two places you can go.... graphical environment, or text console.
          No, I am suggesting that Windows way of doing things (in this minor case of course) is correct: if driver/config is bad, use some default VGA mode and let user have access to GUI settings, Internet (to reinstall driver), etc. As Windows shows, it is almost ALWAYS possible to switch at least to 1024x768 on any desktop and monitor. I have no problem with console and mc, but for average computer user booting to console means computer doesn't boot at all.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by mirza View Post
            If you look here, of 40s to start Ubuntu, X.org takes 5, which is not that I can guarantee Wayland will be faster, it is only hope:
            https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BootCharting...20100722-1.png
            X takes a split second to start. You can't shave much off of that. Use an xterm as your window manager and start X from a command line, you'll see that it's ridiculously fast.

            No, I am suggesting that Windows way of doing things (in this minor case of course) is correct: if driver/config is bad, use some default VGA mode and let user have access to GUI settings, Internet (to reinstall driver), etc.
            A VESA failsafe mode might be possible, but any modern desktop environment will choke under such circumstances. It's not a technical problem, but rather something not really worth doing, as fixing X configuration and the such is ultimately done from a terminal, whether a vt or an xterm.

            Comment


            • #26
              I use E16 - and about 2s after pushing enter from startx (I boot to console) I have an Eterm loaded. E17 doesn't take much longer. So I don't think Wayland will be some magic bullet there.
              I'm also sure that Wayland will grow somewhat as it's developed (important features added, those few-but-important use cases to take care, etc) so we'll see how it stacks up after some maturity. If I'm not mistaken, X has different core goals as well, so an apples-to-apples comparison may not even be possible.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                A VESA failsafe mode might be possible, but any modern desktop environment will choke under such circumstances. It's not a technical problem, but rather something not really worth doing, as fixing X configuration and the such is ultimately done from a terminal, whether a vt or an xterm.
                Er, which is what the OP said should be changed: it should *not* be ultimately be done from a terminal.

                Comment


                • #28
                  So will we lose the ability to do:
                  ssh -X
                  with Wayland?

                  If yes then I'd like to stick to xserver...

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                    Er, which is what the OP said should be changed: it should *not* be ultimately be done from a terminal.
                    I'll believe it when I see it. I've seen more than a decade of trying to do this, with not much success.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                      I'll believe it when I see it. I've seen more than a decade of trying to do this, with not much success.
                      I agree, I think terminal as a failsafe is even more important today and tomorrow where the UI is going to be accelerated. I don't know how many windows I have had to reinstall because of lack of console in emergency situations.

                      To clarify my position - I think Wayland is the future for linux, but linux still needs the console for handling problems with graphics.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X