Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wayland Is Now Playing Well With NVIDIA, ATI Drivers

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by zoomblab View Post
    Φίλε μου, μαζί μιλάμε χώρια καταλαβαινόμαστε

    I don't care. In fact I am all in favor of the Wayland architecture. My post was an observation meant for discussion.

    Again:
    • Wayland: Drops network transparency.
    • PulseAudio: Introduces network transparency.
    Short answer they didn't move to opposite directions. Wayland will implement the same functionality as X in a different way (for simplicity reasons according to the wayland FAQ) and Pulseaudio added functionality that ALSA didn't have (afaik). Where you will introduce a function is just a design decision and could be done a million different ways with pros and cons to each design.

    Καλύτερα τώρα??

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
      Aside from other correct answers to your question, it should also be noted that between audio and visual, there is a MASSIVE difference in the amount of data that has to be shuffled through the stack. Video requires orders of magnitude greater bandwidth than audio. The bandwidth requirements for audio are negligible by today's standard. Video still takes everything you've got.
      Yes, because Ethernet speeds are at a standstill and are not increasing.

      Some of us have been running X sessions over IP since Thicknet and Token Ring dominated the scene.

      Comment


      • #18
        I hope Wayland comes with some kind op C-style networked PostScript-SVG hybrid that can be accelerated with Gallium (SVG) and also a non-networked stripped Xlib solution for backwards compatibility.

        We can dream...

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by locovaca View Post
          Yes, because Ethernet speeds are at a standstill and are not increasing.

          Some of us have been running X sessions over IP since Thicknet and Token Ring dominated the scene.

          Latency is the problem, not bandwidth.

          Some other points:

          * There are many other remote desktop technologies being used today that are without a doubt superior solutions to X for what people need. It's been around for years, but has largely been superceeded by other technologies which are now commonplace in businesses for terminal and remote desktop for users and administrators.

          * You don't need to let your X Server drive your video card in order to use X Windows networking.

          * X Windows networking works just fine on Microsoft Windows and on OS X, yet nobody on those platforms is clamoring for developers to produce X Windows applications for them.

          * Wayland will have it's own X Server which will work with compositing.

          * No amount in increase of bandwidth is going to make X Windows better.

          Put all that together and then try to figure out what that means.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
            Short answer they didn't move to opposite directions. Wayland will implement the same functionality as X in a different way (for simplicity reasons according to the wayland FAQ) and Pulseaudio added functionality that ALSA didn't have (afaik). Where you will introduce a function is just a design decision and could be done a million different ways with pros and cons to each design.

            Καλύτερα τώρα??

            Wayland and Pulseaudio are both servers/managers. One server manages your display, while the other manages your audio.

            XFree X Server, is also a display manager server.

            How much latency does that userland server add to your button clicks?

            Comment


            • #21
              Maybe...

              Maybe it turns out we didn't need network transparency for graphics, but do for audio? Least ways, I myself think I'd stream audio from one server to another a LOT more frequently than I'd run an app.

              Opposite directions or not, both of those directions seem to be meeting my needs better.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by drag View Post
                Latency is the problem, not bandwidth.

                Some other points:

                * There are many other remote desktop technologies being used today that are without a doubt superior solutions to X for what people need. It's been around for years, but has largely been superceeded by other technologies which are now commonplace in businesses for terminal and remote desktop for users and administrators.

                * You don't need to let your X Server drive your video card in order to use X Windows networking.

                * X Windows networking works just fine on Microsoft Windows and on OS X, yet nobody on those platforms is clamoring for developers to produce X Windows applications for them.

                * Wayland will have it's own X Server which will work with compositing.

                * No amount in increase of bandwidth is going to make X Windows better.

                Put all that together and then try to figure out what that means.
                The latency of fiber optics is 5 microseconds/km. I don't need to watch full screen 1080p movies over X. I don't need my remote windows to jiggle like Santa Clause. Even a 10 millisecond latency over copper is more than sufficient for a normal remote session.

                Comment


                • #23
                  The latency of fiber optics is 5 microseconds/km.
                  That's nice.

                  I don't need to watch full screen 1080p movies over X.
                  That's funny because there are remote desktop solutions that can deliver just that.

                  I don't need my remote windows to jiggle like Santa Clause.
                  That's fine. I don't see how that is relevant. Even if you think your talking about Compiz or whatever it's not really relevant as graphics acceleration and compositing should be happening on your local machine.

                  Even a 10 millisecond latency over copper is more than sufficient for a normal remote session.
                  Connecting to a X application running on a server in the room next to you is uninteresting.

                  I use X at work and running something as simple as a browser on a desktop on a different Vlan is painfully slow a times.

                  Meanwhile I can run Citrix with Microsoft Windows hosted in a Xen virtual machine 50 miles away over a busy internet connection and response time is immediate. Draw times are instantaneous.

                  X Windows Networking is obsolete. It CAN be improved and it CAN be fixed, but I don't see anybody working on X12R1 yet.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Also it's irrelevant when discussing Wayland since Wayland can run X11 networking also. Just like Microsoft and OS X's display managers can.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by drag View Post
                      Meanwhile I can run Citrix with Microsoft Windows hosted in a Xen virtual machine 50 miles away over a busy internet connection and response time is immediate. Draw times are instantaneous.

                      X Windows Networking is obsolete. It CAN be improved and it CAN be fixed, but I don't see anybody working on X12R1 yet.
                      That's fine, but let's call a spade a spade. I don't have a problem with ripping out the code if it's a cludge. But saying that it's no longer relevant/needed because we lack the bandwidth or latency to do remote GUI apps is stupid, which was my entire point.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by zoomblab View Post
                        This is a bit off-topic but given Wayland and PulseAudio, does anybody else see Linux video/audio moving in opposite directions? Wayland is dropping network transparency for a lean n' mean graphics framework while PulseAudio stacks a network server on top of ALSA.
                        Maybe something to do with move towards 10baseT. Cat 6 cabling for everything.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by locovaca View Post
                          That's fine, but let's call a spade a spade. I don't have a problem with ripping out the code if it's a cludge. But saying that it's no longer relevant/needed because we lack the bandwidth or latency to do remote GUI apps is stupid, which was my entire point.
                          We lack the bandwidth and latency characteristics to do X11 remoting. Using other protocols is fine.

                          X11 sucks for networking. If even the guys who designed and wrote the original protocol (e.g. Keith Packard) are getting behind Wayland, you have to wonder if maybe -- just maybe -- there's some truth to what people say about X11's performance on modern networks.

                          The funny thing is that many of the same kinds of clueless people who think X11 is great for networking are the ones who claim that X11 sucks for local displays because of networking overhead, which is untrue. (Wayland, Windows GUI, OS X, etc. all involve a local IPC communication channel between applications and the rendering/display server backed by direct-rendered acceleration... just like modern X11.)

                          Wayland really is just about cleaning up the cruft. The use of EGL and KMS and DRI2 for core rendering could be dropped in X.org and all the DDX drivers could be replaced with that common backend and an OpenGL-based renderer for the core drawing commands. That isn't something Wayland has that X11 cannot have.

                          Wayland is just a cleanup of the protocol and architecture. It removes all the legacy cruft of the X11 protocol (including, yes, transparent protocol-level networking). Its architecture relies on a display server doing the compositing and core window management (like OS X or Win7 do). It expects applications to do more of the work in terms of window decorations and interactions rather than relying on a third process (the window manager) to do those things. It requires applications to do their own rendering. It expects a proxy display server to be used for networking when you want it.

                          Really, the only advantage the X11 networking model theoretically has is that the display server can do all the rendering while the application client just issues commands. That means that in a thin client environment you let the thin clients themselves do the rendering instead of having the mainframe do it. Unfortunately, that's not actually all that well supported in this day and age, because GLX only handles modern OpenGL with proprietary vendor extensions. Plus, modern OpenGL apps require very low latency during two-way communication with the GPU, meaning that the network separation between the application and the display server imposes a huge latency/performance hit. It's simple better to get thinner thin-clients without heavy-duty GPUs and beef up the server with as much GPU horse power as possible.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            X11 does well over networking with what it was originally designed for - that design is not really equivalent to current desktops.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Ik think that the entire need for the networked apps is useless nowadays. Here's why I'm thinking that:
                              -Computers nowadays are fast enough to run any app on the planet;
                              -For server-client configs that are usefull in the internet age we already have the cloud/webapps like gmail, facebook, etc.;
                              -Remote filesystem mounting makes it even more useless as you can simply run your own app local on the networked data as if it was local data;
                              -Existing crappy remote desktops solutions (MS Windows style) are good enough to just turn on a remote app in case of remote scientific calculations that need to be put in action on a powerfull remote 'super'computer;
                              -In case of special cases, such as audio and video there are dedicated protocols and apps for that already. Think of VLC for networked music and video and 'that' HD video streaming on devices such as a Playstation 3 for which there are also apps available that can use this protocol on your computer.

                              Now X11 protocol is not a solution that enables you to do things you couldn't do otherwise anymore. But the problem is that while the X.org implementation doesn't exclusively creates advantages, it still fully imposes all (or most/many) of its downsides.

                              So Wayland is not such a bad thing to considder.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Ik think that the entire need for the networked apps is useless nowadays.
                                Actually I think that people are using networked applications far more nowadays then they ever did in the past. I use apps every day. 99% of everybody at my work uses remote apps... but they _don't_know_it_. That is how seamless it is.

                                examples of network applications:
                                * gotomypc.com
                                * XenDesktop
                                * gmail.com

                                It's just that they are not using X11. They couldn't use X11 even if they wanted to. They use web apps or ICA or whatever.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X