Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wayland's Weston Now Handles Full-Screen X Windows

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
    Most wayland contributors are payed devs i think. Intel pays some, colabora some, the guy working on the input thing is payed and so on. Its just that there are few and no company as a whole is interested in desktop linux much. At least in advancing it.
    Yeah, there are a few paid developers, who get paid to do whatever makes the companies and their clients happy. Unfortunately, the work is usually towards some embedded thing, which does not care too much about desktop user features. At other times, the work is for such low-level features, like the sub-surfaces that I am working on, that it does not directly benefit users. "Hey, I can make videos play with a lot less CPU usage! Uhh, sorry, it doesn't really improve desktop user interfaces, but it can make toolkit developers a little happier. Isn't that cool?! No? eheh..."

    Thankfully there are some contributors who work on the desktop user features, so we're not completely stalled there.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Ibidem View Post
      I prefer X to wayland, but if you're bashing wayland, present some evidence.
      Wayland doesn't support server side rendering, which means 2D acceleration using graphics driver isn't possible.
      Applications will have to use OpenGL for 2D acceleration.
      OpenGL (snb/gl) is (very) slow for 2D graphics compared to Intel SNA (snb/sna).
      http://people.freedesktop.org/~ickle...r-20120712.png
      OpenGL causes higher memory usage which means less memory can be used for disk caching
      which means applications run slower.
      qtperf4 uses 3 MB of private memory with X11 backend (-graphicssystem native), but 25 MB with OpenGL backend (-graphicssystem opengl).
      Last edited by JS987; 02-14-2013, 06:27 AM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by pq__ View Post
        Yeah, there are a few paid developers, who get paid to do whatever makes the companies and their clients happy. Unfortunately, the work is usually towards some embedded thing, which does not care too much about desktop user features. At other times, the work is for such low-level features, like the sub-surfaces that I am working on, that it does not directly benefit users. "Hey, I can make videos play with a lot less CPU usage! Uhh, sorry, it doesn't really improve desktop user interfaces, but it can make toolkit developers a little happier. Isn't that cool?! No? eheh..."

        Thankfully there are some contributors who work on the desktop user features, so we're not completely stalled there.
        pq__ is there a timeframe for the desktop stuff??


        Maybe a specific todo (and the subsequent phoronix article ) can help things a bit.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by JS987 View Post
          Wayland doesn't support server side rendering, which means 2D acceleration using graphics driver isn't possible.
          Applications will have to use OpenGL for 2D acceleration.
          OpenGL (snb/gl) is (very) slow for 2D graphics compared to Intel SNA (snb/sna).
          http://people.freedesktop.org/~ickle...r-20120712.png
          Radeon is already doing 2D-over-OpenGL for all GCN hardware so thats a non-issue for the simple fact we are already doing it. Does glamor suck right now? Yes. Can it get better? Yes. Will it get better? Yes.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Ericg View Post
            Radeon is already doing 2D-over-OpenGL for all GCN hardware so thats a non-issue for the simple fact we are already doing it. Does glamor suck right now? Yes. Can it get better? Yes. Will it get better? Yes.
            I don't use Radeon hardware. Glamor will maybe become as fast as Intel SNA, but it can take years. Glamor will have to be supported by GTK/Cairo/Qt as Wayland does no rendering.
            Memory usage won't be probably solved as it is likely limitation of OpenGL.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
              pq__ is there a timeframe for the desktop stuff??

              Maybe a specific todo (and the subsequent phoronix article ) can help things a bit.
              No desktop timeframe that I'm aware of.

              Wayland does have a TODO file, and I think the bugzilla has many items, too. Many things require further protocol design, and the best way to do that would be to experiment and see how things turn out. If you worked on porting a major toolkit to Wayland, I'm sure you would find lots to do; things that you cannot currently implement due to lack of protocol.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by varikonniemi View Post
                It is pathetic that Wayland takes so long to reach maturity since X is probably the only remaining HORRIBLE part of modern desktop Linux.
                It took 30 years to get X windows into the state that it's in, you are just spouting foolish nonsense.

                If you are comparing the X developers to the Wayland developers, well you might be amused to know that they are the same people.

                Maybe you can tell us about how many years and how much resources Apple and Microsoft have put into their desktops.
                Last edited by frantaylor; 02-14-2013, 01:35 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by pq__ View Post
                  No desktop timeframe that I'm aware of.

                  Wayland does have a TODO file, and I think the bugzilla has many items, too. Many things require further protocol design, and the best way to do that would be to experiment and see how things turn out. If you worked on porting a major toolkit to Wayland, I'm sure you would find lots to do; things that you cannot currently implement due to lack of protocol.
                  I'm curious, has anyone tried working with Qt and Wayland? This is all very interesting to me, but I don't want to jump in the water until it's at least marginally functional.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by frantaylor View Post
                    I'm curious, has anyone tried working with Qt and Wayland? This is all very interesting to me, but I don't want to jump in the water until it's at least marginally functional.
                    Qt 5 works i think. All the toolkits (GTK EFL Qt Clutter etc) work more or less.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by frantaylor View Post
                      I'm curious, has anyone tried working with Qt and Wayland? This is all very interesting to me, but I don't want to jump in the water until it's at least marginally functional.
                      GTK you have to jump through some hoops with since its not seamless. KDE is working on support, and should have seamless support in Frameworks 5. Qt5 has support. EFL...not sure.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Ericg View Post
                        Radeon is already doing 2D-over-OpenGL for all GCN hardware so thats a non-issue for the simple fact we are already doing it. Does glamor suck right now? Yes. Can it get better? Yes. Will it get better? Yes.
                        Glamor seems to be abandoned as expected. There are only 5 commits last 6 months.
                        http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/glamor/

                        Glamor will have to be supported by GTK/Cairo/Qt as Wayland does no rendering.
                        GTK3 is using cairo-gl on Wayland.
                        Qt5 Widgets support no HW acceleration, which is unlikely to be fixed as Digia doesn't care about Widgets.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by JS987 View Post
                          Glamor seems to be abandoned as expected. There are only 5 commits last 6 months.
                          http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/glamor/
                          Commits are down but im finding it hard to believe that its been abandoned... AMD still has a couple OSS devs and they are doing GCN hardware work...which the only way to do that is THROUGH Glamor so you have people being paid to work on glamor and r600g, makes it hard to believe that its been abandoned.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by phred14 View Post
                            Please explain. Broken by design is a much more serious accusation than merely a poor implementation.
                            Wayland can't disable compositing for non-full screen applications.

                            WebGL Aquarium
                            https://webglsamples.googlecode.com/.../aquarium.html

                            without compositing
                            50-55 fps
                            with compositing
                            40-45 fps

                            XFCE, Chromium, window maximized, Intel GPU, latest drivers

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I think non-composited non-fullscreen is handled

                              Originally posted by JS987 View Post
                              Wayland can't disable compositing for non-full screen applications.
                              I thought that's what overlays are for? (i.e. for the applications that choose to go this route, they create an overlay of the appropriate type and render into their buffer - Wayland doesn't composite that part, just informs the hardware to scanout from the buffer).

                              Basically should work like video overlays, but with any buffer you choose kind of thing.

                              Here you go - here's the talk about that:

                              http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTI5NTE
                              Last edited by silenceoftheass; 02-15-2013, 07:55 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by silenceoftheass View Post
                                I thought that's what overlays are for? (i.e. for the applications that choose to go this route, they create an overlay of the appropriate type and render into their buffer - Wayland doesn't composite that part, just informs the hardware to scanout from the buffer).
                                I think you're right.

                                There is another potential design issue for Wayland though, it only knows about full window buffers, when displaying remotely text (an important use case), it's quite possible that this will lead to much worse performance than X: with XRender an application can just say draw this (already cached) glyph, whereas for 'stock Wayland' to display one character you either have to send a full buffer (much higher bandwith used) or you implement compression but this adds latency and is a bit stupid from a design POV (undoing what you just did) or .. you keep using X11(X12?) on top of Wayland.

                                Now X is so old and crusty that it has also lots of performance issues.. So we have to wait until the Wayland developers implement remote display to check the real performance difference between both solutions...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X