Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Technical Plans For Making Wayland 1.0

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

  • The Technical Plans For Making Wayland 1.0

    Phoronix: The Technical Plans For Making Wayland 1.0

    After laying out plans earlier this month at FOSDEM for releasing Wayland 1.0 this year, Kristian Høgsberg has now written a more detailed message to the Wayland developers that outlines some of the TODO list and other plans for making Wayland 1.0...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTA1ODg

  • #2
    I want to be able (as a user or developer) set the GPU affinity for my programs!

    Is Wayland for displays what PulseAudio is for audio devices?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by plonoma View Post
      I want to be able (as a user or developer) set the GPU affinity for my programs!

      Is Wayland for displays what PulseAudio is for audio devices?
      Actually, I'd take that one step further. We need something like DXGI, i.e. an API to available GPUs and displays (which display is connected to what GPU, what capabilities does it have, can it do stereo 3d, what subpixel format does it use, etc), as well as a way to initialize an EGL context on the desired GPU/display combo.

      The per-display subpixel format is necessary for modern multi-monitor systems. Right now, if you try to use two monitors in different orientations (portrait & landscape), the second monitor will render text incorrectly - there's no way to specify per-display subpixel configurations!

      Comment


      • #4
        many ICCCM improvements
        Wait, I thought Wayland isn't trying to use X interfaces, isn't ICCCM a big joke and a broken lowest common denominator that is like 20 years old? Why support it under Wayland? Wayland is supposed to be a clean break with new, clean, modern interfaces.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by cl333r View Post
          Wait, I thought Wayland isn't trying to use X interfaces, isn't ICCCM a big joke and a broken lowest common denominator that is like 20 years old? Why support it under Wayland? Wayland is supposed to be a clean break with new, clean, modern interfaces.
          AFAIK, ICCCM is just a big list of behavioral policies X-applications should adhere to, so that they work together and don't screw up each other, most of which is decent enough. When an X-application gets ported to wayland, it still brings along most of that behaviour. As Wayland also needs such policies, ICCCM is a good place to start, cleaned up and waylandified ofcourse.

          Comment


          • #6
            My question is that it seems they might find a way for supprting two RENDERING gpu's, (as in prime, and vga_switcharoo), but is this supporting two DISPLAY gpu's where there are two video cards, each with a screen, or supporting those USB to VGA/DVI things. I would like to ask that, but I don't know how to reply to it on the Mailing list properly without breaking the thread.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by asdx
              Go troll somewhere else, scumbag.
              ?????
              ?????

              Comment


              • #8
                - About "remote Wayland" support, "maybe try to make remote wayland actually happen, to see if there is something in the protocol/architecute that makes it harder than it should be." This past summer was the not too successful remote Wayland project as part of Google Summer of Code.
                hell, yeah!

                Originally posted by asdx
                Go troll somewhere else, scumbag.
                holy shit, and they say i'm the tactless one

                Comment


                • #9
                  Still hoping

                  Still hoping that Wayland will die like other X replacements, but that is looking less likely now.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by KellyClowers View Post
                    Still hoping that Wayland will die like other X replacements, but that is looking less likely now.
                    Uh, why exactly?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
                      Uh, why exactly?
                      In my opinion, it doesn't really solve any problems that need solving, while introducing negatives.

                      It is a pointless break with the past. I have no real issue with breaking from the past if there is a good reason. For example I support PA, and Systemd looks like it will be good (I need to find more rebuttals from upstart devs, though. But either way it is leaving sysvinit behind). But when it gains you nothing...

                      And you lose things as well.

                      Network transparency - sure, they say "we'll just layer it on top, it will be easy and work well". But so far it is a no-show. I also haven't seen whether or not it would be possible to do single windows like X, as opposed to full desktop.

                      Then there is the client-side window decoration thing, which is just stupid.

                      And the "you have to write a compositor to write a WM" thing seem iffy to me. I am not sure how big a problem this is, but it was not reassuring the way they first talked as if there was no possibility of WMs. Just a misunderstanding, it seems, but the compositor may still be an issue.

                      And as I said, it breaks with the past - how many wonderful X WMs will not be ported/recreated for Wayland? I don't like it, no sir.

                      A few times I have wondered if I just am not hearing the wonderful things it will bring instead, but then I have gone looking, and I have not found any truly inspiring essays/discussions about Wayland.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by KellyClowers View Post
                        In my opinion, it doesn't really solve any problems that need solving, while introducing negatives.

                        It is a pointless break with the past. I have no real issue with breaking from the past if there is a good reason. For example I support PA, and Systemd looks like it will be good (I need to find more rebuttals from upstart devs, though. But either way it is leaving sysvinit behind). But when it gains you nothing...

                        And you lose things as well.

                        Network transparency - sure, they say "we'll just layer it on top, it will be easy and work well". But so far it is a no-show. I also haven't seen whether or not it would be possible to do single windows like X, as opposed to full desktop.

                        Then there is the client-side window decoration thing, which is just stupid.

                        And the "you have to write a compositor to write a WM" thing seem iffy to me. I am not sure how big a problem this is, but it was not reassuring the way they first talked as if there was no possibility of WMs. Just a misunderstanding, it seems, but the compositor may still be an issue.

                        And as I said, it breaks with the past - how many wonderful X WMs will not be ported/recreated for Wayland? I don't like it, no sir.

                        A few times I have wondered if I just am not hearing the wonderful things it will bring instead, but then I have gone looking, and I have not found any truly inspiring essays/discussions about Wayland.
                        Well, most of your points say "I just want it to die because I will not use it". If you are OK with using an unmaintained WM (if it's being maintained, I don't know why do you suppose it will not be ported over to Wayland if it becomes mainstream), why wouldn't you be OK with using an unmaintained (which in fact, will not be unmaintained, just will probably not be used by default to end-user distros) display architecture.
                        You may not see the benefits, but I really doubt the people who developed it wants to lose time, so I assume there are. They're just useless for you, maybe you are not on the ideal target of it. That still doesn't explain why would you want it to die. Don't like it, don't use it.
                        Personally, I'm only interested in fast start and fast rendering. About fancyness, the most heavy effects I use are shadow and transparency, and I can live without it, and both Wayland and X.org support all I use. I'll use the faster that supports any lightweight DE. If it doesn't suit your needs (like being able to use an older state of the art WM), you still can use X, you know. No need to wish a project which suits someone else's needs to die.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          >Well, most of your points say "I just want it to die because I will not use it". If you are OK with using an unmaintained WM (if it's being maintained, I don't know why do you suppose it will not be ported over to Wayland if it becomes mainstream), why wouldn't you be OK with using an unmaintained (which in fact, will not be unmaintained, just will probably not be used by default to end-user distros) display architecture.

                          If Wayland achieves dominance, X will be minimally maintained or unmaintained (or rather, one, then the other). No one is going to put that much effort into it. In that case X cannot survive long term any more than the KDE 3 and Gnome 2 forks can. Sure, I might be able to use it for a while, but eventually too much stuff will be broken.


                          >Personally, I'm only interested in fast start and fast rendering.
                          Those are ok goals, I don't think Wayland is worth it just to get there.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by KellyClowers View Post
                            >Well, most of your points say "I just want it to die because I will not use it". If you are OK with using an unmaintained WM (if it's being maintained, I don't know why do you suppose it will not be ported over to Wayland if it becomes mainstream), why wouldn't you be OK with using an unmaintained (which in fact, will not be unmaintained, just will probably not be used by default to end-user distros) display architecture.

                            If Wayland achieves dominance, X will be minimally maintained or unmaintained (or rather, one, then the other). No one is going to put that much effort into it. In that case X cannot survive long term any more than the KDE 3 and Gnome 2 forks can. Sure, I might be able to use it for a while, but eventually too much stuff will be broken.


                            >Personally, I'm only interested in fast start and fast rendering.
                            Those are ok goals, I don't think Wayland is worth it just to get there.
                            With the first point, I'm pretty sure at least all the other OS's devs would try to maintain X, since Wayland depends heavily on an infrastructure only Linux currently provides. Also, I don't think it will be dropped while it doesn't provide equal or better features. As far as I know (not from first hand, sadly), network transparency is a real need for sysadmins, so until Wayland achieves it, I don't think X can be dropped.
                            About broken-ness (I don't think that's a real word, but I'm too tired to think of a proper term), it should keep running, the only problem you will probably have is the lack of new software (of course, at the point (and IF that happen) Wayland is predominant), but being completely on user land I think should suffice while there is no major general API breaks. You will lose direct rendering in new kernels if/when a big change on the graphics stack happens kernel side.

                            About my goals, I agree, I wouldn't develop a brand new server just for that goals, but being happening, I'd chose which I'll use in that basis.

                            EDIT: Also, with older unmaintained WM's, you'll get to the point where everything break itself, so your points contradicts each other. Another example is if there is an X12 protocol. There will be a break with the past at some point. I agree that maybe Wayland's case has no enough reasons for that breakage, but it will happen at some point.
                            I don't like to see how things get dropped either (in most cases, though, it's because there are no maintainers, so I can't blame anyone else than me by not being a dev ).
                            Last edited by mrugiero; 02-24-2012, 11:15 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by KellyClowers View Post
                              In my opinion, it doesn't really solve any problems that need solving, while introducing negatives.
                              How much low-level X11-based development do you do? I don't do any, so I rely on the people who do to tell me whether wayland will help their efforts or hurt them. They seem pretty overwhelmingly in support of wayland from what I have seen, and I tend to trust their judgement.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X