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 Articles & Reviews
  1. Intel Broadwell: GCC 4.9 vs. LLVM Clang 3.5 Compiler Benchmarks
  2. Ubuntu vs. Fedora Linux On Lenovo's X1 Carbon With Core i7 Broadwell
  3. Ubuntu 15.04 Is The Easy Path To Better Performance On Intel Broadwell
  4. NVIDIA's Latest Maxwell Line-Up Against AMD With Catalyst On Linux
  5. Preliminary Tests Of Intel Sandy Bridge & Ivy Bridge vs. Broadwell
  6. AMD FX-8320E Performance On Linux
Latest Linux News
  1. Calamares 1.0 Distribution-Independent Installer Framework Released
  2. Librem 15 Linux Laptop Set To Close At Around $400k USD
  3. Virtual GEM To Increase Mesa's Software Rasterizer Performance
  4. Open Lunchbox: Yet Another Open-Source Laptop Attempt
  5. Wayland/Weston 1.7 Release Candidate
  6. Bugzilla 5.0 Is Coming Soon With New Features
  7. Linux Benchmarking... Even Faster & A Very Interesting February
  8. Does VirtualBox VM Have Much A Future Left?
  9. HAMMER2 File-System Is Still Slowly Coming Together
  10. The Better Looking Window Decorations For GNOME 3.16
Most Viewed News This Week
  1. PlayStation 4 System Compiler Support Landing In LLVM
  2. Linux "GHOST" Vulnerability Hits Glibc Systems
  3. LibreOffice 4.4 Is Coming Soon With New Features
  4. LLVM Adds Options To Do Fuzz Testing
  5. Broadwell Linux Ultrabook Running MUCH Cooler Than Haswell
  6. LibreOffice 4.4 Released With Better OOXML Support, UI Improvements
  7. Vivaldi: A New Chromium-Powered, Multi-Platform Browser
  8. LZHAM 1.0 Lossless Data Compression Codec Released