Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36

Thread: The State Of The Wayland Display Server

  1. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Hehe, they'll sooner or later bring support for QT, but it's sad they first support this thing... Modern display server and old gtk - it doesn't look so good...
    It's funny how KDE and Qt fans say nonsense like this and then complain whenever anyone mentions the horribly mismanaged KDE 4.0 and 4.1 releases...

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by srg_13 View Post
    It's funny how KDE and Qt fans say nonsense like this and then complain whenever anyone mentions the horribly mismanaged KDE 4.0 and 4.1 releases...
    Goes both ways.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Die trolls, die!
    Posts
    525

    Default

    Lets not turn this thread into a KDE vs GNOME flame war guys .. kthx

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by srg_13 View Post
    Other way around - Wayland would be rendering and compositing the desktop, but this would only let you use client drawn apps. So there would be an X server running rootless so you could use legacy apps. The X applications would then be pulled from the X server and would be composted with the normal ones.

    It would be a lot like how Mac OS X handles X applications.
    So would it be possible for the Wayland+X.org configuration to work on two different graphic cards, one integrated and another one discrete?

    https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312756
    http://linux-hybrid-graphics.blogspot.com/

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by srg_13 View Post
    It would be a lot like how Mac OS X handles X applications.
    That has been worrying for me on Wayland (and I can't seem to find any info on this).

    The _only_ reason I think that X is awesome, is because it's a client-server model. So, for example I can have my applications running on my server and displaying them on my computer.

    Mac OSX can't do that. I just hope Wayland will continue to be client-server. Else, I won't bother, as VNC just doesn't cut it.

    Anyone has more info about this?

    Cheers,
    Benedikt

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by beniwtv View Post
    Mac OSX can't do that. I just hope Wayland will continue to be client-server. Else, I won't bother, as VNC just doesn't cut it.

    Anyone has more info about this?

    Cheers,
    Benedikt
    You can run using indirect glx connection. It has fairly good performance even in wireless g network so if you have better than that connection any opengl application that doesn't take advantage of too new features should work well. You can test it by running some opengl application in your server using LIBGL_ALWAYS_INDIRECT=1 enviroment varaible.
    Code:
    LIBGL_ALWAYS_INDIRECT=1 neverputt

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by srg_13 View Post
    Other way around - Wayland would be rendering and compositing the desktop, but this would only let you use client drawn apps. So there would be an X server running rootless so you could use legacy apps. The X applications would then be pulled from the X server and would be composted with the normal ones.

    It would be a lot like how Mac OS X handles X applications.
    I am willing to start a wikipedia page to detail the differences and similarities between the graphical sides -- windowing and gui in general -- of Mac OSX versus X.org. Does anybody know if such thing exists anywhere?

  8. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by srg_13 View Post
    It's funny how KDE and Qt fans say nonsense like this and then complain whenever anyone mentions the horribly mismanaged KDE 4.0 and 4.1 releases...
    It's funny to see some people choosing crap rather then better toolkits, because there's G in name. 4.1 was actually great and 4.0 was testing release. It's also funny, because some people have filters on their eyes and they see only BS from one side. What's nonsense here? Gtk is old compared to QT4, great FAN.

    @Bugmenot

    I'll stop here :>
    Last edited by kraftman; 05-21-2009 at 10:45 AM.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    It's funny to see some people choosing crap rather then better toolkits, because there's G in name. 4.1 was actually great and 4.0 was testing release. It's also funny, because some people have filters on their eyes and they see only BS from one side. What's nonsense here? Gtk is old compared to QT4, great FAN.
    True, except their making that testing release and calling it "4.0" was false advertising. As such, it's fair to criticize it for not living up to what a 4.0 release is expected to be (it's expected to build on 3.x...).

    They should have come up with a new name so that it could be version 1.0. KDE: Awesomeness Edition, version 1.0. Ok I admit my name is lousy, but at least it would have been more honest.
    Last edited by StringCheesian; 05-21-2009 at 06:54 PM.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    714

    Default

    Shush your mouths about it. It's history. KDE released something that most people didn't find useful. Live with it. There is nothing that they could of done to avoid it. It is simply the fundamental reality of what happens with software and rewrites.

    It's as obvious as it is blameless.

    It's a trade off. A bit of pain for a couple years until the software gets up to speed, then hopefully they'll have something modern and better then what you can get from other places.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •