Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Drafting Plans For X12, The X11 Successor

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

  • Drafting Plans For X12, The X11 Successor

    Phoronix: Drafting Plans For X12, The X11 Successor

    While it's likely in the next two to three years that the Wayland Display Server will play a pivotal role on the Linux desktop, the X11 Server isn't going away immediately. There's still legacy X applications that must run, uncertainty about what Solaris/BSD will do for their display server due to their graphics driver shortcomings, and other uncharted issues. It's possible that X12, an improved version of the X11 protocol, could even be developed...

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

  • #2
    What a waste of time...

    Comment


    • #3

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by http://www.x.org/wiki/Development/X12
        This is not to say that there's an X12 project. There isn't. But if one day there is...
        'nuff said…

        Comment


        • #5
          Hurd will be happy about this. Don't need to hurry!

          Comment


          • #6
            A random guy edited a wiki page, big effing deal!

            Could someone please explain this "network trancparency" fetish? Why would I wish my "next-generation" X12-based smartphone to be network transparent? How would that be better than VNC et al?

            From my POV, the Wayland approach to GPU framebuffer composition appears an order of magnitude more efficient to anything involving composition in system memory over a network socket. Given the choice between full GPU acceleration and network transparency, I'd pick the first every time.

            Besides, as GTK3 demonstrated there are ways to render seamlessly over the network at the toolkit level, without involving X.

            Comment


            • #7
              Seriously? Edward Cullen?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                A random guy edited a wiki page, big effing deal!

                Could someone please explain this "network trancparency" fetish? Why would I wish my "next-generation" X12-based smartphone to be network transparent? How would that be better than VNC et al?

                From my POV, the Wayland approach to GPU framebuffer composition appears an order of magnitude more efficient to anything involving composition in system memory over a network socket. Given the choice between full GPU acceleration and network transparency, I'd pick the first every time.

                Besides, as GTK3 demonstrated there are ways to render seamlessly over the network at the toolkit level, without involving X.
                Another idiot who doesn't understand how X11 and network transparency.

                There's nothing about network transparency that says you can't share buffers like in Wayland when the client and server are on the same machine. Just like X11 currently uses fast local sockets and shared memory for communication on the local machine, X12 could do the same with buffers. In fact, X11 already uses shared memory to send large amounts of data between the client and server. It's a little clunky, but it could be cleaned up.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by siride View Post
                  Another idiot who doesn't understand how X11 and network transparency.

                  There's nothing about network transparency that says you can't share buffers like in Wayland when the client and server are on the same machine. Just like X11 currently uses fast local sockets and shared memory for communication on the local machine, X12 could do the same with buffers. In fact, X11 already uses shared memory to send large amounts of data between the client and server. It's a little clunky, but it could be cleaned up.
                  Another idiot dreaming of a reincarnation of the dying X11.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by cl333r View Post
                    Another idiot dreaming of a reincarnation of the dying X11.
                    I'm a realist who doesn't think total rewrites with major semantic changes are the way to go with complex infrastructure software.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Wayland is a neat idea, but it's not a replacement for X11. Network transparency *does* matter, not only because people will always be running dumb terminals, but also simply because it necessitates clean design and standardized protocol.

                      Wayland cannot replace X11 because it does not currently, nor does it aim to, provide a similar feature-set. X12 might. *Any* meaningful discussion of this is significant, because it is needed.

                      Heck, there's nothing to say that X12 couldn't be built *on top* of Wayland. They're pretty much orthogonal in my mind.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        This is what I "understand" about network transperancy:
                        I am a server, and there is another server somewhere, and I want to be able to render for the other server, so that other server can display my images instead of rendering it themselves, or I want to be able to have the other server render my images before sending them back to me, etc.
                        Replace "render" with "do process" and "input", and "display" with "output", and this seems to be spot on from my limited observations.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by TechMage89 View Post
                          Wayland is a neat idea, but it's not a replacement for X11. Network transparency *does* matter, not only because people will always be running dumb terminals, but also simply because it necessitates clean design and standardized protocol.

                          Wayland cannot replace X11 because it does not currently, nor does it aim to, provide a similar feature-set. X12 might. *Any* meaningful discussion of this is significant, because it is needed.

                          Heck, there's nothing to say that X12 couldn't be built *on top* of Wayland. They're pretty much orthogonal in my mind.
                          Piping pixels is one of the least efficient ways to do network transparency. At one point you could get your whole application with the x draw commands and that was how people actually developed desktop programs. Anymore desktop programs are developed with C or C++ toolkits, and network transparency on the toolkit level is going to be a less bandwidth heavy way to do things. Even the idea of a dumb terminal is a comparitive thing. You can buy a really cheap ARM or MIPS SoC that will knock the socks off of anything we had in the 90's for under ten dollars. Sure it's not as universal, and it takes some more processing power, but it does save where a lot of dumb terminal setups have problems, and that is with total bandwidth.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by TechMage89 View Post
                            Wayland is a neat idea, but it's not a replacement for X11. Network transparency *does* matter, not only because people will always be running dumb terminals, but also simply because it necessitates clean design and standardized protocol.

                            Wayland cannot replace X11 because it does not currently, nor does it aim to, provide a similar feature-set. X12 might. *Any* meaningful discussion of this is significant, because it is needed.

                            Heck, there's nothing to say that X12 couldn't be built *on top* of Wayland. They're pretty much orthogonal in my mind.
                            at some point it will provide the same functionality.

                            and apart from that i think i trust the people that actually write code for wayland more than the ones bitching about network transparency and client side stuff on the mailing lists and forums

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                              From my POV, the Wayland approach to GPU framebuffer composition appears an order of magnitude more efficient to anything involving composition in system memory over a network socket.
                              This statement is non-nonsensical. You're attempting the compare the method the server uses for composition with the method the server uses for communication with the client. While they are not entirely disjoint(faster communication between server and client means more objects can be composited by the server), your attempt is frame them a mutually exclusive is illogical. Also you understanding of how Wayland composites is also backwards. It's currently X that uses frame buffers while it communicates with the compositor on what to to render.

                              Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                              Besides, as GTK3 demonstrated there are ways to render seamlessly over the network at the toolkit level, without involving X.
                              This is patently false.
                              Originally posted by TechMage89
                              Heck, there's nothing to say that X12 couldn't be built *on top* of Wayland. They're pretty much orthogonal in my mind.
                              This is true. Wayland is a compositor that doesn't have to run with an X server, however it is not a replacement for it.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X