1. Computers
  2. Display Drivers
  3. Graphics Cards
  4. Memory
  5. Motherboards
  6. Processors
  7. Software
  8. Storage
  9. Operating Systems


Facebook RSS Twitter Twitter Google Plus


Phoronix Test Suite

OpenBenchmarking.org

The Wayland Situation: Facts About X vs. Wayland

Eric Griffith

Published on 7 June 2013
Written by Eric Griffith
Page 3 of 4 - 282 Comments

Some Misconceptions about X and Wayland

I) “X is The UNIX Way.” The Unix Way says to do one thing and do it well-- X handled printing, it handled buffer management, it was its own toolkit, it handled fonts, it was a binary interpreter, along with loads of other things. What ONE THING was X doing and what ONE THING was X doing well?

II) “X is Network Transparent.” Wrong. Its not. Core X and DRI-1 were network transparent. No one uses either one. Shared-Memory, DRI-2 and DRI-3000 are NOT network transparent, they do NOT work over the network. Modern day X comes down to synchronous, poorly done VNC. If it was poorly done, async, VNC then maybe we could make it work. But its not. Xlib is synchronous (and the movement to XCB is a slow one) which makes networking a NIGHTMARE.

III) “The Wayland developers are only re-implementing X11 because they don't understand it.” Wrong. Most of the Wayland developers ARE former X11 developers. They know how terrible it is. They know where its failings are. They want to do better than X11.

IV) “Wayland requires 3D.” Wrong. It requires compositing, but that's not necessarily 3D. Nothing in Wayland requires 3D, there is even a Pixmen backend for software rendering.

V) “Wayland can't do remoting.” Wrong. Wayland should be BETTER than X at remoting, partially do its asynchronous-by-design nature. Wayland remoting will probably look a like a higher-performance version of VNC, a prototype already exists. And this is without us even giving it serious thought about how to make it better. We could probably do better if we tried.

VI) “Wayland breaks everyone's desktop.” Also wrong. Once XWayland is finalized and merged we should have more-or-less perfect backwards compatibility because every X app just gets its own mini X-server to deal with. There is one known snag and thats with window transformations because app thinks its in the top right corner of the screen (yay global coordinates) because that client's X server is locked to the size of that client's window.

Latest Linux Hardware Reviews
  1. A Walkthrough Of The New 32 System Open-Source Linux Benchmarking Test Farm
  2. Habey MITX-6771: Mini-ITX Board With Quad-Core J1900 Bay Trail
  3. OCZ Vector 150 SSD On Linux
  4. Noctua i4 CPU Cooler: Great For Cooling High-End LGA-2011v3 CPUs
Latest Linux Articles
  1. 17-Way Linux Graphics Card Comparison With Civilization Beyond Earth
  2. AMD Kaveri: Open-Source Radeon Gallium3D vs. Catalyst 14.12 Omega Driver
  3. 12-Way AMD Catalyst 14.12 vs. NVIDIA 346 Series Linux GPU Comparison
  4. AMD Catalyst 14.12 Omega Driver Brings Mixed Results For Linux Users
Latest Linux News
  1. Fedora Doesn't Yet Enable F2FS File-System Support
  2. XZ 5.2 Adds New Multi-Threaded Options
  3. Intel 2.99.917 X.Org Driver Released, 3.0 Release Finally Near
  4. Server-Side XCB Is Being Discussed For The X.Org Server
  5. Adreno A4xx Rendering With Freedreno Takes Shape
  6. Linux 3.19-rc1 Kernel Released Ahead Of Schedule
  7. X.Org Server 1.16.3 Released To Fix Security Issues
  8. Linux 3.19 Merge Window Closes Ahead Of Schedule
  9. MIPS R6 Architecture Now Supported By GCC
  10. LowRISC To Feature Tagged Memory & Minion Cores
Latest Forum Discussions
  1. FPS capped on Linux (AMD fglrx drivers)
  2. Maker3D - create your 3D RPG
  3. Need some hand holding with upgrading xserver
  4. Speeding up systemd networking service
  5. Major Performance Breakthrough Discovered For Intel's Mesa Driver
  6. Looking for an nVidia GPU, but not sure how well they are supported.
  7. Are there an app using HSA ?
  8. The New SuperTuxKart Looks Better, But Can Cause GPU/Driver Problems