Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • #31
    Wayland not yet taking center stage on other distributions ?????

    Originally posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: We Have Mir & Wayland, But There Still Could Be X12

    While the Mir Display Server and the Wayland protocol are widely viewed as the next-generation display technologies for Linux systems, there's already been delays with Mir and Wayland hasn't yet been widely adopted. Even if/when Mir and Wayland manage to lift off, the X.Org Server won't suddenly die and will be supported for years to come...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTQ3NjI

    Did you not see Wayland was added to Debian jessie? they're just waiting for a desktop to go with it

    http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=wayland

    and there are many Linux's that have Wayland in their repos openSUSE is going to have a Wayland desktop soon too they just need a Desktop to go with it and not Weston

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
      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.
      Not all of them. I believe alanc has no interest in wayland and wants to keep X11 going. Anyway, there is nothing stopping new people from getting involved.

      With that said, I (as someone not involved with X development) am happy with X in its current form and I plan to continue using X on my systems for years to come.
      Last edited by ryao; 10-04-2013, 01:23 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by dee. View Post
        Nvidia seems to be wanting to make the OSS driver their new blobby driver. So the distinction between open/closed gets blurred.

        "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...

        Except, when RHEL moves to Wayland...
        OTOH AMD is publishing info about their cards/chips like crazy latelly...they might now don't mind that a OSS driver be as good or better than their blob...

        Yes, 5:4 is almost square and yes, is not as old as 4:3 but its quite old...very popular for DTP....or any other activity w/computers where you need a lot of vertical space in comparison to horizontal...and now that 4:3 is dead, 5:4 is the only option to who doesn't want 16:9 because of space in a desk or similar issues...


        Yes, RHEL will move to Wayland...but *only* to Wayland or there will be option to install X instead of Wayland ?I bet there will be an option...

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by sarmad View Post
          In other words, the applications themselves should be network transparent, rather than the rendering stack.
          Oh really You are quite stuck in the client-server paradigm to suggest something like this. So instead of one code in heavy c++, I should actually write the backend and frontend separately, write serialization routines and stuff, and route every single call from the UI to the core over socket/network, 'cause that will make it only about 1000x slower.

          Wake up. The lower network transparency is in the stack, the easier is it for upper layers (which is me).

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by AJSB View Post
            OTOH AMD is publishing info about their cards/chips like crazy latelly...they might now don't mind that a OSS driver be as good or better than their blob...

            Yes, 5:4 is almost square and yes, is not as old as 4:3 but its quite old...very popular for DTP....or any other activity w/computers where you need a lot of vertical space in comparison to horizontal...and now that 4:3 is dead, 5:4 is the only option to who doesn't want 16:9 because of space in a desk or similar issues...


            Yes, RHEL will move to Wayland...but *only* to Wayland or there will be option to install X instead of Wayland ?I bet there will be an option...
            RHEL is moving to Wayland in like a year or so from now and they're going to have Xwayland anyways so the user will not see any change at all

            Comment


            • #36
              On the contrary

              Originally posted by Pajn View Post
              The core X11 protocol is. But sure, no one uses it anymore.
              I use it every day, since 1995. I have high definition (1920x1080) touchscreen displays forwarded with ssh to my desktop served up from client applications running on computers in Glasgow (Scotland), Fairbanks (Alaska), Gold Coast (Australia), Melborne (Florida), Ann Arbor (Michigan), Eugene (Oregon), London (England) and Fort Collins (Colorado), and many other locations around the world. With a single touch to any icon in any of several Xfce panels I can instantly switch from being a user in any of these locations to any other.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Remote User View Post
                I use it every day, since 1995. I have high definition (1920x1080) touchscreen displays forwarded with ssh to my desktop served up from client applications running on computers in Glasgow (Scotland), Fairbanks (Alaska), Gold Coast (Australia), Melborne (Florida), Ann Arbor (Michigan), Eugene (Oregon), London (England) and Fort Collins (Colorado), and many other locations around the world. With a single touch to any icon in any of several Xfce panels I can instantly switch from being a user in any of these locations to any other.
                As I understands it this is not real networktransparens. To get real networktransparens you need to move the network layer to your toolkit in this case gtk? Only if you use real xlib based app you get the network transparency. (or is I compleatly off?)

                Comment


                • #38
                  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.
                  Well, if all you need for remoting is sending dumb images across the network, I think you need not be afraid, it will be achievable with any of new display servers.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Remote User View Post
                    I use it every day, since 1995. I have high definition (1920x1080) touchscreen displays forwarded with ssh to my desktop served up from client applications running on computers in Glasgow (Scotland), Fairbanks (Alaska), Gold Coast (Australia), Melborne (Florida), Ann Arbor (Michigan), Eugene (Oregon), London (England) and Fort Collins (Colorado), and many other locations around the world. With a single touch to any icon in any of several Xfce panels I can instantly switch from being a user in any of these locations to any other.
                    Note that most of it is remote displaying and not remote rendering.
                    Remote rendering is sending commands across the network, and rendering on the client.
                    Remote displaying is rendering on the server, and send rendered parts across the network.

                    The first is what the core X11 protocol is capable of. Because it acts as a toolkit.
                    But extensions of the protocol used by 90% of X apps are not remote rendering capable (because most of other toolkits, including gtk and qt, render render themselves and give bitmaps to the X server), and so you only get remote displaying.
                    Which is achievable by any display server, really.
                    It is, as other people said here, akin to unoptimized VNC. It certainly works, but it surely isn't a compelling reason to keep X11 architecture.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by xeekei View Post
                      You're suggesting that Wayland is slower than X?
                      Total system performance will go down as many e.g. Cairo-based applications will run slower or hog CPU or GPU.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by JS987 View Post
                        Total system performance will go down as many e.g. Cairo-based applications will run slower or hog CPU or GPU.
                        really as we only seen lower cpu or gpu usage from Wayland so far

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by LinuxGamer View Post
                          really as we only seen lower cpu or gpu usage from Wayland so far
                          Wayland applications can have lower usage on some machines, but higher on others.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by LinuxGamer View Post
                            RHEL is moving to Wayland in like a year or so from now and they're going to have Xwayland anyways so the user will not see any change at all
                            Yes, i was forgetting about Xwayland, but...

                            ...AFAIK, performance under Xwayland (and xMir for that matter) is lower than in X...so, they will notice, at minimum , that difference.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by JS987 View Post
                              Wayland applications can have lower usage on some machines, but higher on others.
                              First, since almost all applications actually render outside the X11 protocol, and not through Xlib, there should be no noticeable change on performance on this area. Second, yes, it will probably be slower than non-composited X on memory constrained machines, because of the extra buffers required for compositing. If memory is limited, there might be paging to disk, slowing down the computer.

                              On the other hand, rendering toolkits could use acceleration, too, either with an agnostic, specialized 2D driver (kind of DDX, but generic for any toolkit) or via OpenGL, so this possible hog of the CPU sounds like a temporary problem, if any.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by AJSB View Post
                                Yes, i was forgetting about Xwayland, but...

                                ...AFAIK, performance under Xwayland (and xMir for that matter) is lower than in X...so, they will notice, at minimum , that difference.
                                I don't think you can see the difference in the single app. The performance are not so bad in Wayland+Xwayland and you have all the benefits that wayland carry on, the smooth composite is in.

                                For sure you can notice you are in wayland because the window composite process is smooth and perfect.

                                I think Wayland+Xwayland is a better X.
                                Last edited by sp82; 10-04-2013, 06:52 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X