Originally posted by damentz
View Post
Explicit GPU Synchronization Merged For XWayland
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by pharmasolin View PostXorg fans, what else is wrong with a Wayland?
Because of that, for all the good Wayland does, it's fragmented by design and by default.
That kind of design has its Pros. No one is beholden to a single organization or implementation; there's less lock-in. If kernels were done that way we could potentially swap out Linux for FreeBSD or Solaris. That's a hell of a pipe dream and a stretch of the imagination, but with more freedom comes fragmentation while defined protocols and targets comes unification and the potential for interoperability.
It also allows the various teams to play Keeping Up With the Jonses. If KDE does all this nifty stuff and GNOME doesn't then GNOME starts to look bad and needs to keep up...or vice-a-versa, I'm not trying to play favorites here...because they're all playing Keep Up with wlroots and Weston
Short-term, it sucks and makes Wayland look bad. Long-term, the Pros really outweigh the Cons.
Wayland is sort of like Linux Distributions. You can pick the crappiest, worst distribution that exists and go "Welp, clearly Linux sucks." when there are 9000 other Linux implementations. KWin doesn't do Yada Blah so Wayland sucks. Let's ignore that Mutter or Sway does do Yada Blah.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Monsterovich View Post
Fragmentation, inferior architecture.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by M.Bahr View PostThis merge request comes with a high risk to break things in the linux graphics stack and desktop environment.
Originally posted by damentz View Post
Not only is it worth the risk, but it'll bring immediate benefits that help current use cases. This quote from Eric:
What it describes can be done with implicit sync, per my blog post: https://blogs.gnome.org/shell-dev/20...nsive-clients/. https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/..._requests/1120 is an Xwayland implementation of this by yours truly. It was shot down by Nvidia engineers, citing performance concerns. Well, the explicit sync MR this article is about has the same performance characteristics. Apparently those can be acceptable or not depending on which synchronization colour they're painted in.
Moreover, this can't actually have the described effect in Xwayland (in cases involving any Xwayland GPU work), because Xwayland's GPU context isn't higher priority than that of its clients.
Originally posted by schmidtbag View PostI'm a Wayland fan but from what I understand, multi-monitor seems to be the most problematic feature regardless of DE.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
That even though there's a reference implementation in Weston, everyone still does their own thing which includes adopting the various protocols at their own pace so we have a fragmented environment where it isn't guaranteed that one feature will be available from one graphical environment to the next.
Because of that, for all the good Wayland does, it's fragmented by design and by default.
That kind of design has its Pros. No one is beholden to a single organization or implementation; there's less lock-in. If kernels were done that way we could potentially swap out Linux for FreeBSD or Solaris. That's a hell of a pipe dream and a stretch of the imagination, but with more freedom comes fragmentation while defined protocols and targets comes unification and the potential for interoperability.
It also allows the various teams to play Keeping Up With the Jonses. If KDE does all this nifty stuff and GNOME doesn't then GNOME starts to look bad and needs to keep up...or vice-a-versa, I'm not trying to play favorites here...because they're all playing Keep Up with wlroots and Weston
Short-term, it sucks and makes Wayland look bad. Long-term, the Pros really outweigh the Cons.
Wayland is sort of like Linux Distributions. You can pick the crappiest, worst distribution that exists and go "Welp, clearly Linux sucks." when there are 9000 other Linux implementations. KWin doesn't do Yada Blah so Wayland sucks. Let's ignore that Mutter or Sway does do Yada Blah.
And all fragmentation is only delusions in your head. Wayland is wayland and every wayland compositor is compatible. The fact some implement features not standardized is not fragmentation, it's just experimental work until a standard is agreed upon. Like this one in the article we talk about.Last edited by varikonniemi; 09 April 2024, 10:19 AM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by varikonniemi View Post
And this is it's largest benefit. No longer monoculture under one display server, but only a protocol to interface with the underlying stack, where diversity can flourish and the best will win! You call it fragmentation, i call it natural selection.
And all fragmentation is only delusions in your head. Wayland is wayland and every wayland compositor is compatible. The fact some implement features not standardized is not fragmentation, it's just experimental work until a standard is agreed upon. Like this one in the article we talk about.
Natural selection taking multiple years is short-term fragmentation and even after it takes place there's still that pesky fragmentation via the unswappable incompatibility that just isn't as prevalent with X11 due to all of them working off the single codebase.
Let's just agree to disagree on that.
Am I the only one who rocked things like GNOME OpenBox and XFCE KWin back in the day?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by M.Bahr View Post
I was not talking about the frame synchronization benefits of explicit sync in general but about the complexity of x11. The code is an ancient mess and just slight changes can break the DE experience. That's the reason why the wayland aka x11 devs weigh up the pros and cons and usually choose to not alter it. X11 is a mining field and nobody wants a broken desktop environment.
By the way explicit sync is in the making and planning by the mesa devs way longer before this merge request. I think the time and effort would have been better spent focusing on wayland and not on x11.
The fix is for Wayland, not for X11.
It is not touching or fixing X11 problems, but the ones Wayland protocol failed to address properly.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
On Wayland you can't swap KWin for Mutter, XFWM, Fluxbox, IceWM, OpenBox, or another WM like we could back in the X11 days so they're not compatible like they used to be. Fragmentation via incompatibility. They just happen to support mostly the same Wayland protocols, but even now we can't switch between a GNOME, KDE, Mate, or Gamescope session and have the same features working or usable because that level of compatibility isn't part of the protocol.
Natural selection taking multiple years is short-term fragmentation and even after it takes place there's still that pesky fragmentation via the unswappable incompatibility that just isn't as prevalent with X11 due to all of them working off the single codebase.
Let's just agree to disagree on that.
Am I the only one who rocked things like GNOME OpenBox and XFCE KWin back in the day?
Just like FTP clients understanding the file transfer protocol, even browsers were FTP clients; browsers themselves understanding HTTP, multiple systems using REST via HTTP and so on. There is no single implementation. And this is a very good thing. Chrome for all? GNOME for all? No alternatives allowed? GIMP? KCalc? Xorg?
Mixing and matching different desktops with window managers which are all based on Xorg; what for, they're all the same under Xorg. What's the use anyway? So, yes, I think your usecase was the corner case and I'm not sure everything worked with everything 100%Last edited by reba; 09 April 2024, 11:01 AM.
Comment
-
Comment