Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 59

Thread: Wayland's Weston Now Handles Full-Screen X Windows

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    pq__ is there a timeframe for the desktop stuff??

    Maybe a specific todo (and the subsequent phoronix article ) can help things a bit.
    No desktop timeframe that I'm aware of.

    Wayland does have a TODO file, and I think the bugzilla has many items, too. Many things require further protocol design, and the best way to do that would be to experiment and see how things turn out. If you worked on porting a major toolkit to Wayland, I'm sure you would find lots to do; things that you cannot currently implement due to lack of protocol.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    351

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by varikonniemi View Post
    It is pathetic that Wayland takes so long to reach maturity since X is probably the only remaining HORRIBLE part of modern desktop Linux.
    It took 30 years to get X windows into the state that it's in, you are just spouting foolish nonsense.

    If you are comparing the X developers to the Wayland developers, well you might be amused to know that they are the same people.

    Maybe you can tell us about how many years and how much resources Apple and Microsoft have put into their desktops.
    Last edited by frantaylor; 02-14-2013 at 01:35 PM.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    351

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pq__ View Post
    No desktop timeframe that I'm aware of.

    Wayland does have a TODO file, and I think the bugzilla has many items, too. Many things require further protocol design, and the best way to do that would be to experiment and see how things turn out. If you worked on porting a major toolkit to Wayland, I'm sure you would find lots to do; things that you cannot currently implement due to lack of protocol.
    I'm curious, has anyone tried working with Qt and Wayland? This is all very interesting to me, but I don't want to jump in the water until it's at least marginally functional.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frantaylor View Post
    I'm curious, has anyone tried working with Qt and Wayland? This is all very interesting to me, but I don't want to jump in the water until it's at least marginally functional.
    Qt 5 works i think. All the toolkits (GTK EFL Qt Clutter etc) work more or less.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frantaylor View Post
    I'm curious, has anyone tried working with Qt and Wayland? This is all very interesting to me, but I don't want to jump in the water until it's at least marginally functional.
    GTK you have to jump through some hoops with since its not seamless. KDE is working on support, and should have seamless support in Frameworks 5. Qt5 has support. EFL...not sure.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    Radeon is already doing 2D-over-OpenGL for all GCN hardware so thats a non-issue for the simple fact we are already doing it. Does glamor suck right now? Yes. Can it get better? Yes. Will it get better? Yes.
    Glamor seems to be abandoned as expected. There are only 5 commits last 6 months.
    http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/glamor/

    Glamor will have to be supported by GTK/Cairo/Qt as Wayland does no rendering.
    GTK3 is using cairo-gl on Wayland.
    Qt5 Widgets support no HW acceleration, which is unlikely to be fixed as Digia doesn't care about Widgets.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JS987 View Post
    Glamor seems to be abandoned as expected. There are only 5 commits last 6 months.
    http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/glamor/
    Commits are down but im finding it hard to believe that its been abandoned... AMD still has a couple OSS devs and they are doing GCN hardware work...which the only way to do that is THROUGH Glamor so you have people being paid to work on glamor and r600g, makes it hard to believe that its been abandoned.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phred14 View Post
    Please explain. Broken by design is a much more serious accusation than merely a poor implementation.
    Wayland can't disable compositing for non-full screen applications.

    WebGL Aquarium
    https://webglsamples.googlecode.com/.../aquarium.html

    without compositing
    50-55 fps
    with compositing
    40-45 fps

    XFCE, Chromium, window maximized, Intel GPU, latest drivers

  9. #29

    Default I think non-composited non-fullscreen is handled

    Quote Originally Posted by JS987 View Post
    Wayland can't disable compositing for non-full screen applications.
    I thought that's what overlays are for? (i.e. for the applications that choose to go this route, they create an overlay of the appropriate type and render into their buffer - Wayland doesn't composite that part, just informs the hardware to scanout from the buffer).

    Basically should work like video overlays, but with any buffer you choose kind of thing.

    Here you go - here's the talk about that:

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTI5NTE
    Last edited by silenceoftheass; 02-15-2013 at 07:55 AM.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silenceoftheass View Post
    I thought that's what overlays are for? (i.e. for the applications that choose to go this route, they create an overlay of the appropriate type and render into their buffer - Wayland doesn't composite that part, just informs the hardware to scanout from the buffer).
    I think you're right.

    There is another potential design issue for Wayland though, it only knows about full window buffers, when displaying remotely text (an important use case), it's quite possible that this will lead to much worse performance than X: with XRender an application can just say draw this (already cached) glyph, whereas for 'stock Wayland' to display one character you either have to send a full buffer (much higher bandwith used) or you implement compression but this adds latency and is a bit stupid from a design POV (undoing what you just did) or .. you keep using X11(X12?) on top of Wayland.

    Now X is so old and crusty that it has also lots of performance issues.. So we have to wait until the Wayland developers implement remote display to check the real performance difference between both solutions...

Posting Permissions

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