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 Benchmarking Platform
Phoromatic Test Orchestration

The Wayland Situation: Facts About X vs. Wayland

Eric Griffith

Published on 7 June 2013
Written by Eric Griffith
Page 3 of 4 - 283 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. Radeon Linux Benchmarks: Catalyst 15.3 Beta vs. Linux 4.0 + Mesa 10.6-devel
  2. Trying Out The Modern Linux Desktops With 4 Monitors + AMD/NVIDIA Graphics
  3. Turning A Basement Into A Big Linux Server Room
  4. NVIDIA's $1000+ GeForce GTX TITAN X Delivers Maximum Linux Performance
  5. OS X 10.10 vs. Ubuntu 15.04 vs. Fedora 21 Tests: Linux Sweeps The Board
  6. The New Place Where Linux Code Is Constantly Being Benchmarked
Latest Linux News
  1. Firefox 37 Coming Today With Heartbeat, HTTPS Bing
  2. OpenIndiana 2015.03 Updates Its Solaris/Illumos Environment
  3. GNOME 3.16 SDK Runtime Now Available
  4. Initial Intel Braxton Support Might Come To Linux 4.1
  5. Why KDE's KWin Doesn't Integrate Weston/QtCompositor For Wayland Support
  6. Clang Now Supports Targeting The NaCl OS
  7. PC-BSD Updates Its Lumina Desktop (v0.8.3)
  8. Fedora 22 Alpha Now Available For AArch64 & PowerPC64
  9. Systemd Developers Did NOT Fork The Linux Kernel
  10. PulseAudio 7.0 To Enable LFE Remixing By Default
Most Viewed News This Week
  1. Introducing The Library Operating System For Linux
  2. Improved OpenCL Support For Blender's Cycles Renderer
  3. The Big Features Of The Linux 4.0 Kernel
  4. Open-Source Driver Fans Will Love NVIDIA's New OpenGL Demo
  5. Allwinner Continues Jerking Around The Open-Source Community
  6. GNOME 3.16 Released: It's Their Best Release Yet
  7. Ubuntu 15.04 Final Beta Released
  8. Systemd Change Allows For Stateless Systems With Tmpfs