Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

We Have Mir & Wayland, But There Still Could Be X12

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

  • #16
    Wayland = X12, right?

    It's a new, incompatible ap ... with an X backwards compatibility layer, XWayland.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by johnc View Post
      In terms of Internet trolling, I think Michael is coming close to unseating Gaben from the top spot.
      Yeah he's doing quite well indeed. Then again we're here commenting on the "piece" so he's, in a way, a winner..

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by AJSB View Post
        Wayland is waaaayyy too new...you can bet i won't want to be a guinea pig...i want something truly stable...Wayland at least for now won't work (if ever will) with blobs and for *now* blobs are way faster than OSS drivers.
        Nvidia seems to be wanting to make the OSS driver their new blobby driver. So the distinction between open/closed gets blurred.

        I prefer good old 5:4 )
        "Good old"? How is 5:4 good old? All(most) monitors used to be 4:3 in the past, if anything is "good old" it's 4:3. 5:4 is too close to a square...

        Most natural thing is Enterprises continue to use/want X11.

        So , yeah, X11 will stay with us for a long long time...even at Desktop level.
        Except, when RHEL moves to Wayland...

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by halfmanhalfamazing View Post
          I don't know enough about X to know how it all comes together. (x-server and the other components)

          But I have noticed over quite some time now how the x.org guys work on the x server by itself and release it separately with its own versioning number. This is the basis of my question. Why could not Wayland or some other display server form the basis of a new X, once all of the details are ironed out and add-ons put in place?
          Well that is the case already. Wayland basically is the new X. It's basically X12, except that it's entirely different in design than X11 and doesn't maintain compatibility with the X11 codebase... so it's not called X12.

          What would the advantage be of renaming Wayland to X-something?

          Comment


          • #20
            Hi,
            in math
            wayland : X11 = ssd : hdd
            If you have an ssd on your machine you don't want come back to hdd, never.
            I can say the same for Wayland and X11.
            Wayland it's smooth, every frame it's perfect, never feel before a good sensation like this in front of X11.
            it's the right way to get the job done, it's like supposed to be 10 year ago.
            Every single hour for X developement is an hour subtracted to wayland development, a waste of time, only X mantainance is acceptable.
            Last edited by sp82; 10-03-2013, 06:19 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Pajn View Post
              The core X11 protocol is. But sure, no one uses it anymore.
              So all those X apps I regularly run remotely... I'm imagining it?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by sp82 View Post
                it's the right way to get the job done, it's like supposed to be 10 year ago.
                It's more like we will return 10 years back with performance.
                Last edited by JS987; 10-03-2013, 06:32 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by JS987 View Post
                  It's more like we will return 10 years back with performance.
                  You're suggesting that Wayland is slower than X?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
                    So all those X apps I regularly run remotely... I'm imagining it?
                    Nope, as long as you don't run ancient Motif apps X is just acting like a very shitty VNC.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by dee. View Post
                      Well that is the case already. Wayland basically is the new X. It's basically X12, except that it's entirely different in design than X11 and doesn't maintain compatibility with the X11 codebase... so it's not called X12.

                      What would the advantage be of renaming Wayland to X-something?
                      I do not mean renaming.

                      Currently, Xorg consists of multiple pieces, xserver being just one of them, using the X11 protocol. X RandR is another component.

                      Let's just take x.org 7.6 for example, which has in it xserver 1.9, xrandr (it was version 1.2 IIRC), and other pieces - piece3, piece4, piece5, etc.

                      A new X12 would consist of wayland, xrandr, and other pieces. piece3, piece4, piece5, etc.

                      Now, I realize that all of these said pieces would most likely be re-written from scratch, with whole new parts. But all I'm asking is why could not Wayland sit at the heart of the new X12 considering how far along it already is? Especially considering that Xwayland (should) come along nicely as a good X11 compatibility layer.

                      It doesn't have to be called x-anything..... ever. But with continued advancements, as the X.org crew creates what it sees as its new vision for a new X12 protocol, they could bolt on/bolt in the new pieces onto the already completed Wayland.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by halfmanhalfamazing View Post
                        I do not mean renaming.

                        Currently, Xorg consists of multiple pieces, xserver being just one of them, using the X11 protocol. X RandR is another component.

                        Let's just take x.org 7.6 for example, which has in it xserver 1.9, xrandr (it was version 1.2 IIRC), and other pieces - piece3, piece4, piece5, etc.

                        A new X12 would consist of wayland, xrandr, and other pieces. piece3, piece4, piece5, etc.

                        Now, I realize that all of these said pieces would most likely be re-written from scratch, with whole new parts. But all I'm asking is why could not Wayland sit at the heart of the new X12 considering how far along it already is? Especially considering that Xwayland (should) come along nicely as a good X11 compatibility layer.

                        It doesn't have to be called x-anything..... ever. But with continued advancements, as the X.org crew creates what it sees as its new vision for a new X12 protocol, they could bolt on/bolt in the new pieces onto the already completed Wayland.
                        Wayland doesn't need those extra pieces. That's the whole point. Wayland is the replacement for X11. Wayland uses OpenGL ES or Pixman instead of XRender. The replacement for the Xserver would be either Mutter, KWin, Weston, Openbox (if they want to port them). Wayland is the protocoll to make the parts of X.org that we actually use, to talk to each other, instead of going through this X middleman.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
                          Nope, as long as you don't run ancient Motif apps X is just acting like a very shitty VNC.
                          But it works, and it works well. I can, and regularly do, ssh onto other machines to run complex apps like Eclipse or sometimes Firefox, or various in-house development tools.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
                            But it works, and it works well. I can, and regularly do, ssh onto other machines to run complex apps like Eclipse or sometimes Firefox, or various in-house development tools.
                            While that is currently true, it's not where software development techniques are heading to. Apps that run across the network should actually consist of a client part that runs on the client. In other words, the applications themselves should be network transparent, rather than the rendering stack.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I think the right question to ask is who will work on it, in case it exists. I mean, the experienced X guys are mostly centered on working on Wayland, and that's their bet for the future. X12 would probably require a development time similar (greater, actually, because even when they have most of the infrastructure done and most of the work is shrinking the protocol, it still requires some protocol design, and THEN actual coding) to the one Wayland still needs to be mainstream.

                              On the Wayland as heart of X12, I think if it would exist (is there any need for it?) it would make sense to reuse the Wayland protocol (and library) as the buffer manager of the X12 protocol. Of course, an X12 would require more than just Wayland, as it's proposer said.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                We Have Mir & Wayland, But There Still Could Be X12
                                Why? Who cares? Who needs? What developer talked about it in this week?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X