Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38

Thread: Moving On From An X.Org World To Wayland

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    Daniel on the video said that the network solution they are testing is something similar to VNC right? Weren't they targeting something more advanced??
    You can see for yourself: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~krh/weston/log/?h=remote

    It's like VNC in that we send the final composed images, rather than a series of rendering commands (gradient here, text here, etc). This usually ends up being cheaper to transfer over the wire, as is true for most things today - even 3D scenes, which were once totally remotable since it was just a series of (not very many) polygons. But unlike VNC, it does smart damage and compression.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by daniels View Post
    No coding skills to understand something like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by daniels View Post

    It's like VNC in that we send the final composed images, rather than a series of rendering commands (gradient here, text here, etc). This usually ends up being cheaper to transfer over the wire, as is true for most things today - even 3D scenes, which were once totally remotable since it was just a series of (not very many) polygons. But unlike VNC, it does smart damage and compression.
    And thanks for the answer.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by daniels View Post
    You can see for yourself: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~krh/weston/log/?h=remote

    It's like VNC in that we send the final composed images, rather than a series of rendering commands (gradient here, text here, etc). This usually ends up being cheaper to transfer over the wire, as is true for most things today - even 3D scenes, which were once totally remotable since it was just a series of (not very many) polygons. But unlike VNC, it does smart damage and compression.
    Smart damage + compression?

    Beware of this patent from Microsoft. They've been very active patenting everyting related to RDP.
    http://www.google.es/patents/US82093...G4Dg#v=onepage

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newwen View Post
    Smart damage + compression?

    Beware of this patent from Microsoft. They've been very active patenting everyting related to RDP.
    http://www.google.es/patents/US82093...G4Dg#v=onepage
    Aside from the fact that patents cover everything you'd ever possibly think of, theirs covers transmitting rendering commands over the wire and then having them rasterised separately. That isn't us.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    180

    Default

    Finally a video that articulates my understanding about the x/wayland situation. Sometimes while reading discussion here at phoronix i start to doubt myself since so many write with such certainty utter crap.

    Good to see Wayland development is on good tracks, and the people designing it semm to really know what they are doing.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shmerl View Post
    Have no problem at playing this in Firefox...
    What ancient/buggy video plug-in you use?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    196

    Default

    How does Wayland handle multiple screens in "clone mode" with different subpixel geometries?

    If the client is responsible for antialising and subpixel rendering or some kind of transfor, if you have different kind of monitors connected to your graphics card or some kind of transformation on one of them, the image will be fucked up for one of them.

    Rendering performed by clients should be abstracted from output devices (the way postscript is for printers) and actual rendering should happen on the server.

    There's a reason X11 is complex, and I'm growing less convinced that Wayland is a good solution for Linux graphics.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cologne, Germany
    Posts
    308

    Exclamation Messed up?

    Quote Originally Posted by newwen View Post
    How does Wayland handle multiple screens in "clone mode" with different subpixel geometries?

    If the client is responsible for antialising and subpixel rendering or some kind of transfor, if you have different kind of monitors connected to your graphics card or some kind of transformation on one of them, the image will be fucked up for one of them.

    Rendering performed by clients should be abstracted from output devices (the way postscript is for printers) and actual rendering should happen on the server.

    There's a reason X11 is complex, and I'm growing less convinced that Wayland is a good solution for Linux graphics.

    No, it won't be.
    Context-resolving is mainly happening in the appropriate graphics-drivers, which handle their own context (even of multiple screens and modes).
    It is the task of the compositor to tell the drivers what to do, so the client-sided-implementation makes sense. No one really stops you from writing a lib that makes this handling easy.
    I am sure it would be simpler than the bloatware what the Xorg-Server is in many cases.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frign View Post
    No, it won't be.
    Context-resolving is mainly happening in the appropriate graphics-drivers, which handle their own context (even of multiple screens and modes).
    It is the task of the compositor to tell the drivers what to do, so the client-sided-implementation makes sense. No one really stops you from writing a lib that makes this handling easy.
    I am sure it would be simpler than the bloatware what the Xorg-Server is in many cases.
    My point is that clients cannot render sub-pixels correctly to buffers if they don't know what context are they rendering to. I don't know if X server actually renders taking that into account, but ideally, clients could give the server context independent comands (as in postscript) which are then transformed and rendered by the server. Of course, this is not as fast as direct rendering by the client.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cologne, Germany
    Posts
    308

    Wink Sub-Pixel-Rendering

    Quote Originally Posted by newwen View Post
    My point is that clients cannot render sub-pixels correctly to buffers if they don't know what context are they rendering to. I don't know if X server actually renders taking that into account, but ideally, clients could give the server context independent comands (as in postscript) which are then transformed and rendered by the server. Of course, this is not as fast as direct rendering by the client.
    I am not completely into the Wayland-spec, but I am certain this is part of it. How did the devs put it? Every frame is perfect, and judging from my tests with GL-applications (like glgears), this works well.

Posting Permissions

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