Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wayland Preparing For 1.0 Stable Release

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

  • Wayland Preparing For 1.0 Stable Release

    Phoronix: Wayland Preparing For 1.0 Stable Release

    This weekend at FOSDEM 2012 what Kristian Høgsberg is expected to say in Brussels will surprise many of you: Wayland 1.0 is gearing up for release as their first -- stable -- release. Wayland is supposed to be ready to take on the Linux desktop world...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTA1MTQ

  • #2
    The question is: what do the Xorg developers think about all this? Are they the first one to think it's time to move to Wayland, or do they somehow have something againts all this?

    Comment


    • #3
      I wan't to see a webbrowser running on wayland. And what about Adobe Flash, will this ever run on wayland? AFAIK it has got some hard dependencies on X. And as much as I hate the thing, I really need the plugin for some websites.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
        I wan't to see a webbrowser running on wayland. And what about Adobe Flash, will this ever run on wayland? AFAIK it has got some hard dependencies on X. And as much as I hate the thing, I really need the plugin for some websites.
        X will run as a user space process under Wayland for apps that haven't made the transition.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
          I wan't to see a webbrowser running on wayland. And what about Adobe Flash, will this ever run on wayland? AFAIK it has got some hard dependencies on X. And as much as I hate the thing, I really need the plugin for some websites.
          Perhaps not a full browser yet, but the following screenshot shows a Webkit port running...

          http://wayland.freedesktop.org/webkit-wayland.png

          As for Flash - it might run under an X compatibility layer, though that would presumably rule out the use of a Wayland-native browser. But as you say, it's entirely tied to X, so it will never run natively under Wayland unless Adobe ports it. And I think the phrase "cold day in hell" applies to that.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by bulletxt View Post
            The question is: what do the Xorg developers think about all this?
            Who do you think created Wayland?

            Comment


            • #7
              i'm really excited to test wayland, and i'd really like to see some comparisons of it vs X. as much as i can tell amd and nvidia dislike working on linux drivers, if wayland is as simplified as stated, it might be EASIER to make drivers for it, and it might perform better.

              as for kde support, i'd say that kde5 should be the beginning of wayland support. i think that'd be a great way to start a clean slate for kde, and reduce confusion.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by asdx
                Former Xorg developers created Wayland, aka Kristian Høgsberg and many others.
                X developers in general are quite supportive of the effort since it uses all of the infrastructure built over several years including DRM and kernel mode setting. It is a logical successor to X. Fedora's take on the subject is at

                http://lists.fedoraproject.org/piper...er/145273.html

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
                  X developers in general are quite supportive of the effort since it uses all of the infrastructure built over several years including DRM and kernel mode setting. It is a logical successor to X. Fedora's take on the subject is at

                  http://lists.fedoraproject.org/piper...er/145273.html
                  After reading that thread I have a complete lack of confidence in seeing well-implemented network transparency in a Wayland context. I know I shouldn't be so cynical, but I can't help but think that this is going to go as well as gnome shell.

                  Of course, without vendor buy-in it's a non-starter anyway.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by johnc View Post
                    After reading that thread I have a complete lack of confidence in seeing well-implemented network transparency in a Wayland context
                    Don't see why

                    http://lists.fedoraproject.org/piper...er/145290.html

                    "The downsides that have been described include:

                    - We lose network transparency! Well, sure, the protocol doesn't have
                    that directly. You can still do vnc-like things trivially and with a
                    modest amount of additional wayland protocol (or just inter-client
                    conventions) you can do spice-like things. This is good, not bad,
                    because efficient remoting protocols do not look like X. Now we get to
                    design a good one, and in the meantime vnc-style remoting sure does go a
                    long way towards being good enough. (But, we can't switch yet, because
                    we don't even have vnc-style remoting yet; so we're not switching yet.)"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
                      I read the whole thread. I just don't have any confidence in them. What I saw was "we'll cross that road when we get there" and all I could think of is ending up with the cluster-f we have on Windows.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by johnc View Post
                        I read the whole thread. I just don't have any confidence in them. What I saw was "we'll cross that road when we get there" and all I could think of is ending up with the cluster-f we have on Windows.
                        Or in other words, "I think the developers behind this are all stupid and I know better than them". With a hearty helping of FUD.

                        You can't even come up with a reason it won't work, just "I don't have any confidence in them" and bringing up other unrelated platforms for some reason.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                          Or in other words, "I think the developers behind this are all stupid and I know better than them". With a hearty helping of FUD.

                          You can't even come up with a reason it won't work, just "I don't have any confidence in them" and bringing up other unrelated platforms for some reason.
                          A reason what won't work?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by johnc View Post
                            A reason what won't work?
                            What this whole thread was about?
                            Originally posted by johnc View Post
                            After reading that thread I have a complete lack of confidence in seeing well-implemented network transparency in a Wayland context

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              My take on Wayland

                              Experienced X developers: Look at the new shiny Wayland we're creating. It's better than X in every possible way.

                              Masses: Oh noes - you don't list network transparency as a feature. Doom, Doom, Doom.

                              Experienced X developers: Right, because that will be taken care of by the layer above. It's much better that way.

                              Masses: You can't get rid of [implementation detail] "network transparency". Doom!

                              Experienced X developers: Really, it's trivial. All you have to do is run an alternative compositor on Wayland that would scrape the buffers, compress them, and send them over the network. It's far more flexible than the X system, and also gives better performance. For the moment, we aren't even going to bother with this trivial detail because at the start everyone will be using X apps anyway and it will work the same. It will only matter after several years of use when native apps start being used.

                              Masses: I don't trust these devs. They're obviously going to screw up network transparency. I'm not sure why, i just think they will. Look at windows, it doesn't have X and it sucks.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X