Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu Allegedly To Have Its Own X, Wayland Alternative

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by johnc View Post
    As far as I can see, no real new "features" are actually planned, and Windows 7 & 8 continue to have far more advanced display servers.
    Can you explain this? What features does the Win7 display server have that Wayland will be missing? It seems to me like Wayland is actually cribbing a lot of stuff from the Win7 design.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
      Can you explain this? What features does the Win7 display server have that Wayland will be missing? It seems to me like Wayland is actually cribbing a lot of stuff from the Win7 design.
      If these features are planned for Wayland, it should definitely be communicated, because it'd be nice if...

      1) You could install / update a video driver without having to reboot and without having to close out your applications and log out.
      2) You could simultaneously run multiple GPUs from different vendors and have an extended desktop across the outputs.

      These sorts of things would make me more interested in Wayland, since I don't think we'll see them in X.org any time soon.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by johnc View Post
        If these features are planned for Wayland, it should definitely be communicated, because it'd be nice if...

        1) You could install / update a video driver without having to reboot and without having to close out your applications and log out.
        2) You could simultaneously run multiple GPUs from different vendors and have an extended desktop across the outputs.

        These sorts of things would make me more interested in Wayland, since I don't think we'll see them in X.org any time soon.
        1) is a problem of kernel-space vs userspace drivers. Thats not an X problem, thats a "General design of the linux graphics stack" problems. User-space drivers are safer, nicer, and have better stability, but kernel-space drivers have better performance and lower latency. Kernel-space was chosen because the FOSS drivers have limited performance already, therefore we need the most we CAN get.

        2) No idea. Isn't that Xinerama? (Wayland does make multi-monitor easier so it very well COULD b e able to do that, but I dont know)

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by johnc View Post
          If these features are planned for Wayland, it should definitely be communicated, because it'd be nice if...

          1) You could install / update a video driver without having to reboot and without having to close out your applications and log out.
          I'm probably oversimplifying things here, but if there was a way for the graphics kernel module to communicate to user-space that it's been re-loaded (after a crash/lock/upgrade), a global repaint and (or, in the best case, just an) upload to the gpu should be all that's necessary to get things back to the state they were in before the event.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Ericg View Post
            1) Cleaner code,
            2) cleaner and more efficient protocol,
            3) better support for GPU-switching,
            4) better support for full-screen apps (try having a full screen window change the resolution under X, depending on your WM you'll get mixed results)
            5) proper screenlocking (under X an app can bypass the screenlock if it really wants to)
            6) lightweight enough that it can be used on tablets, phones or desktops.
            7) Better multi-monitor support,
            8) frame-perfect graphics-- no lagging, tearing or stuttering
            9) also fun fact: its relatively future-proof. The wayland protocol really just moves pointers and buffers around to different sections, it lets other programs handle what those buffers contain, how the data got there and things like that. By letting third party handle the major implementation details and just having the protocol as barebones as possible it means if there ever comes a day when we have a big shift in how we do graphics (like X went through) we may not have to throw the protocol out the window or start bypassing it like we did with X, we just change the 3rd party bits to the new architecture./ style and keep plugging away
            Of course almost(?) all of those issues could be addressed in X12 if anybody ever got around to start working on it...

            (It seems like most people forgot there was X1-10 before X11, and before that there was something called "W" to explore similar features.)

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by JanC View Post
              Of course almost(?) all of those issues could be addressed in X12 if anybody ever got around to start working on it...

              (It seems like most people forgot there was X1-10 before X11, and before that there was something called "W" to explore similar features.)
              As I understanded (something I realy dont now anything about) the video, Wayland is designed to do what they tried to do with xorg the last 10 years. What xorg was supposed todo ended to be the ideal way to do it (and in a explosion of complexity) some years after the birth of linux.So they moved more and more functionality to the clients. Wayland don't has any new way to work. It is designed to do what they in practice did with xorg. The problem what that for xorg it was a abomination to work like that, Wayland is designed to do it.
              If the ideal how it should work in Wayland differ from the original ideal of how xorg should work I think a new name is logical.
              Last edited by Akka; 02-09-2013, 06:53 PM.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by JanC View Post
                Of course almost(?) all of those issues could be addressed in X12 if anybody ever got around to start working on it...

                (It seems like most people forgot there was X1-10 before X11, and before that there was something called "W" to explore similar features.)
                Yeah.. and if X12 did all those things then X12 applications wouldn't be compatible with X11, nor would proprietary X12 drivers.. so you'd have a improved, simplified DS called "X12" which wasn't fully compatible with X11, but could probably host X11 applications... which is exactly what Wayland is. It just isn't called "X12".

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by JanC View Post
                  Of course almost(?) all of those issues could be addressed in X12 if anybody ever got around to start working on it...

                  (It seems like most people forgot there was X1-10 before X11, and before that there was something called "W" to explore similar features.)
                  Wayland IS X12 ...minus the X. The "X" protocol hasn't been updated since BEFORE X11 since during X11 development they were BREAKING the X-specification in order to make things sane. There's a lot of cruft in the "X" Protocol that would have to get ripped out anyway. So either way they would've had to write a new protocol. THe difference is if you called it "X12" you go in with the preconception of maintaining either the "X style" or the backwards compatibility. By calling it "Wayland" or basically anything EXCEPT "X[1-9[1-9]" They are making it clear that this is a clean breaking point.

                  You also avoid any political issues that would come up from anyone still using the X protocol wanting to give input on the development.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by F i L View Post
                    Yeah.. and if X12 did all those things then X12 applications wouldn't be compatible with X11, nor would proprietary X12 drivers.. so you'd have a improved, simplified DS called "X12" which wasn't fully compatible with X11, but could probably host X11 applications... which is exactly what Wayland is. It just isn't called "X12".
                    With one very important difference: X12 would have network support for all applications

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by curaga View Post
                      With one very important difference: X12 would have network support for all applications
                      I hope that was sarcasm but if its not...

                      "X is not network transparent anymore and hasn't been for years." -- Daniel Stone (one of the head devs on X.org and)

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Ericg View Post
                        "X is not network transparent anymore and hasn't been for years." -- Daniel Stone (one of the head devs on X.org and)
                        Yes, that is a developers opinion. X, to me, is still network transparent since I can still run apps with 'ssh -X'. And the 'new' login manager lightdm also contains functioning XDMCP.

                        That makes the total pretty network transparent to me...

                        Fact that this is not important with design decisions in X, does not make it not network transparent anymore. It just does not work as well as it used to...

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Rexilion View Post
                          Yes, that is a developers opinion. X, to me, is still network transparent since I can still run apps with 'ssh -X'. And the 'new' login manager lightdm also contains functioning XDMCP.

                          That makes the total pretty network transparent to me...

                          Fact that this is not important with design decisions in X, does not make it not network transparent anymore. It just does not work as well as it used to...
                          Its RELATIVELY network transparent. If the app is okay with DRI 1 or RENDER, they can be network transparent. Though Wayland should be able to have better Network Transparency than even X since it removes the round-trips-before-render synchronous design. (Yes I know XCB is asych but no much uses it, a lot of stuff is still on Xlib which means round-trips)

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Ericg View Post
                            Its RELATIVELY network transparent.
                            Than it IS network transparent. Sjees, why would one play an OpenGL game over a LAN? That's insane. Then they should make OpenGL network transparent, NOT X. (which is my opinion of course...)

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Ericg View Post
                              "X is not network transparent anymore and hasn't been for years." -- Daniel Stone (one of the head devs on X.org and)
                              I understand what he meant by that in that FOSDEM presentation but for the end user X is still very much network transparent in practice, at least as much as, say, an NFS filesystem. Granted, in the same sense, so is VNC and whatever other mechanism gets folded into the Wayland context. Though in my experience X had always provided far better ability and flexibility than VNC stuff, but it's been a long time since I've even touched VNC or Windows RDP-anything.


                              There's quite a bit of X criticism these days (and Mr. Stone's presentation was a bit off-putting to me in that sense) and it's probably true to say that X has fallen behind the competition. But a decade ago X was far superior at certain things than the alternatives so I don't think some of the original design ideas were necessarily based on numskull concepts. I accept that maybe it's time for something different but yikes this has been a hostile break.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Rexilion View Post
                                Than it IS network transparent. Sjees, why would one play an OpenGL game over a LAN? That's insane. Then they should make OpenGL network transparent, NOT X. (which is my opinion of course...)
                                Gig-Eth could do openGL over LAN but thats an extreme case right now.

                                But let's not forget: Whats X's worst-case-scenario? Network. The absolute WORST position you can put an X-server in is over the network (more so than Windows Display Manager or whatever Apple's DM is) Why? Round-Trips. Every fail/success call back and forth between the X server and the app-- which is a lot due to being synchronous-- has to travel over the network and gets affected by network lag.

                                Can you do network transparent applications with X? Yes. People have decades. SHOULD you? Probably not. Would you WANT to? Hell no. Not for anything that requires any amount of back and forth between your side and the server side.

                                This is one part about Wayland that will be pretty nice. Client side chooses whether we get Rooted desktop or Rootless, (full desktop, VNC, or only individual windows, X) its A-sync, every frame is perfect, built in compression. We may finally get Windows RDP quality built into the desktop instead of being an afterthought (NX)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X