Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

XWayland 2D Performance Appears Better Than XMir

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

  • #41
    Originally posted by rvalles View Post
    There's a major flaw with that list. The man-hour myth. Quickly and High Quality is not possible. It doesn't matter how much money is thrown at it. Mir is going to show us that.
    That myth is only about the details of taking a "serial" task and trying to do it quicker. Development of larger systems is often a highly parallel task. That is, you can have someone work on getting 3D accel in XWayland while someone different works on input method management and so on. You can do a decent number of things at once in some software development if only you can afford to pay enough people (FOSS does not, of course, and save for a few exceptional cases like the Linux kernel where there's a large amount of commercial interest, FOSS projects are usually severely understaffed - people with the requisite skill generally want to get paid highly for it and then aren't interested in doing hobby work in their off time when they have spouses, children, and social lives to look after besides their 40+ hour work-weeks).

    It's true that there is a maximum reasonable staffing count for a project. The X/Mesa/Wayland guys have already said they're not there yet by any stretch. Mir may be hitting that max depending on how much money Canonical is throwing at it and how much of the low-level pieces of the stack they're relying on other parties to finish. In turn, that means Mir may develop quicker, but at increased cost.

    Or they might be having a handful of unskilled cheap laborers working ridiculous hours on it so they're missing out on quality but keeping it cheap. This is what many game publishers try to force dev companies do, for example; underpay and overwork developers in hopes of keeping big games at sub-$10m budgets. The really good (high quality) games typically have either a many-year development cycles a good amount of highly-paid developers. Or both. And then they clock in at $20m, $80m, $150m, or more, once accounting for marketing and distribution.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by elanthis View Post
      It's true that there is a maximum reasonable staffing count for a project. The X/Mesa/Wayland guys have already said they're not there yet by any stretch. Mir may be hitting that max depending on how much money Canonical is throwing at it and how much of the low-level pieces of the stack they're relying on other parties to finish. In turn, that means Mir may develop quicker, but at increased cost.
      There were 25 contributors to Mir in the last year. And 35 to Wayland, 59 to Weston. So I highly doubt that Mir is well-staffed.

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
        There were 25 contributors to Mir in the last year. And 35 to Wayland, 59 to Weston. So I highly doubt that Mir is well-staffed.
        Yeah, but you have to take into account how much of those wayland/weston contributors are developing full time.
        Last edited by TheOne; 30 June 2013, 05:31 PM.

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by nerdopolis View Post
          Keep in mind that as far as I can tell xmir and xwayland are somewhat different.

          xmir seems to me like its a fullscreen x server, that runs a full x session, including a full X window manager like compiz, that is forwarded to display on a mir server, and doesn't seem integrated.

          xwayland on the other hand is ROOTLESS, in which x programs run, and Weston has its own miniature window manager that integrates the X apps with the wayland apps.
          Not really... they're both pretty much equivalent (indeed, I think Xmir was originally based on the Xwayland code). Both are *intended* for running rootless, providing long-term compatibility for X applications that aren't ported to run natively. The difference is in the short term - in Weston, Wayland already has a native (if minimal) desktop, so apps can run in rootless mode. On Mir, there's no native desktop yet, so they have to run an X-based desktop as a full-screen application via Xmir.

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by phoen1x View Post
            What's up with all these phoronix Mir hype "news" like every damn day?
            Advertising revenue, of course.

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by TheOne View Post
              What I mean with more advanced is that well, XWayland segfaulted to the guy doing some of the tests where XMir ran fine like 3D as someone else mentioned. So there is a big chance that canonical developers improved XWayland while doing the refactory to xMir. There is also the fact that those test the guy did where running Wayland over Weston and just applications using XWayland instead of using XWayland to run an entire DE so that would actually run faster than what canonical guys are offering with XMir and a full Desktop Environment for backward compatibility issues of DE still running on X.

              There could also be a slight chance that running Wayland Weston and XWayland with 3D applications isn't mature yet and the same could apply to Mir. Anyways this tests aren't the same to not say fair. We need a pure XWayland vs XMir test, both running an entire Desktop environment.
              It's likely this tester just didn't have mesa patched. Jono Bacon, as a programmer, does know which patches he needs to use OpenGL on XMir. If I have to make a guess, the patches exist for XWayland, too, but just are not in upstream mesa because they would be pointless until XWayland is in mainstream X.org.
              Guessing again, both would need patches for everything that requires direct rendering, since this X server can't really see the hardware or the kernel, but sees a Wayland or Mir surface instead.

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by bwat47 View Post
                Fedora and gnome have plans to switch to wayland on a similar timeframe as ubuntu's switch to mir: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipe...ch/180546.html

                Also its extremely naive to think that just because the code is GPL3 that canonical cannot "control" mir.

                I don't know KDE's exact plans, but the soon to be released KDE 4.11's kwin does have experimental wayland support. The upstream desktops are making good progress on porting to wayland, the distros will follow along once the desktops fully support it. Canonical's one advantage is that they control both unity and mir, so they can "force" ubuntu's adoption of mir a little quicker, but the way things are going I really don't think mir will be adopted that much quicker than wayland, if even quicker at all. Anyway, all this furvor about which is "first" is pretty absurd. Doing things right is better than doing things "fast". Many people also seem to forget that mir would not be anywhere NEAR where it is if it wasn't for the work wayland and upstream had already done with xwayland, EGL drivers etc... Just because canonical swooped in at the last second and built their own solution on what upstream had already been working on for some time does not mean mir is some sort of rapidly developed technical marvel.
                Canonical is a joke
                "Jono Bacon forcing function is a good thing"

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
                  It's likely this tester just didn't have mesa patched. Jono Bacon, as a programmer, does know which patches he needs to use OpenGL on XMir. If I have to make a guess, the patches exist for XWayland, too, but just are not in upstream mesa because they would be pointless until XWayland is in mainstream X.org.
                  Guessing again, both would need patches for everything that requires direct rendering, since this X server can't really see the hardware or the kernel, but sees a Wayland or Mir surface instead.
                  Or just simply, a bug. Not a reflection on one being more advanced than the other - just the fact that almost all software (especially pre-release stuff like this) has bugs, and one of them might have broken GL support on Xwayland.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                    Not sure about GNOME3 or XFCE, but i bet they aren't crazy about it either.

                    Which means Canonical does control Mir, because they're the only ones who can re-release it in a license that people will use.
                    GNOME uses GPL+ and LGPL_ while XFCE uses tri-licences of GPL+, LPGL+ and BSD.
                    LGPL3+ would be fine for display manager. The main issue is Canonical behaviour towards upstream considering that Mir display manager is a clone of Wayland.
                    It is not the first Canonical acted that way, Unity was originally a copy of early Gnome Shell.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by finalzone View Post
                      GNOME uses GPL+ and LGPL_ while XFCE uses tri-licences of GPL+, LPGL+ and BSD.
                      LGPL3+ would be fine for display manager. The main issue is Canonical behaviour towards upstream considering that Mir display manager is a clone of Wayland.
                      It is not the first Canonical acted that way, Unity was originally a copy of early Gnome Shell.
                      I don't see your point. The post you quote explicitly states Canonical are *the only ones* who can sublicense. Comparing with dual or even triple licensing is mixing apples and oranges: in those cases, you still have the same rights than everyone else, and in Canonical's they have *more* rights than everyone else. And this extra rights come with extra control.

                      EDIT: On a weird sidenote, I somehow *really* skipped your point, and read only the licensing related part. I didn't know Unity was made from GNOME Shell. Might be because I didn't like either.
                      Last edited by mrugiero; 30 June 2013, 10:12 PM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X