Originally posted by siride
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Wayland Meets Some Summer Love w/ New Changes
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by siride View PostThe Wayland fanboys kind of fall into that same position...
Well, things don't get done if nobody is around to do them. It's already bad enough that X.org has limited manpower. How is Wayland supposed to get done or work if there is only one guy working on it? It matters a whole lot.
Any large system is going to end up seeming "horribly complex". That's the reality of mature software.
Terrible, terrible idea. So much of what a toolkit does is very client-specific.
With your system, instead of just diddling around with things on the client-side (i.e., function calls), you have to send messages to the server and wait for responses in many cases.
How would you deal with subclassing? Owner draw? What about new custom widgets that don't derive from existing widgets? And how could you leverage the object-oriented hierarchy of widgets when that is all hidden on the Wayland server?
Secondly nothing is hidden inside Wayland. Toolkit would create its own windows and classes etc etc tec and just feed that to the Wayland API (which like anything else on paper doesn't exist, hence the paper in the first place).
You still have to communicate with the server. You still have to micromanage things on the server (except with your system, you have to micromanage even more). You still have to listen for and handle events.
The fact that all other OSes have client-side toolkits should tell you something about the way things should be done...
Leave a comment:
-
Wayland is a nice concept, but it fundamentally depends on Linux video drivers being independent from X. Until things like Gallium and all that get up to speed, and KMS is standard across all hardware, then Wayland is going to pretty worthless.
So what is the point of spending all this time hacking on Wayland when almost nobody can meet the requirements to use it?
If X itself is barely improved by the time the new Linux video stack matures and stabilizes then I am sure that Wayland will gain a lot more attention.
------------------------------------
Keep in mind that X and Wayland is not a either or.
You do not have to eliminate X Windows support in order to run Wayland.
As proof:
I can quite happily run connect to Linux box from Microsoft Windows and run a X Server on Windows to display applications from Linux. I can also do that from OS X. Neither of which requires me to hand over my entire display to some X Server.
Leave a comment:
-
There is new git tree qt-wayland.
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~jbarnes/qt-wayland/?h=4.7
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by V!NCENT View PostProjects created out of X.org frustration but never materialised becuase it didn't had any other goal other than not being X.org...
I have no idea what a single developper has to do with any of this. If one wants to make shit possible, they make shit possible. It is an idea, a concept, an abstract and all I know is that it is:
A) Not ready yet;
B) Not done yet.
So?
Whilst X.Org might be a good foundation for todays systems, it appears to be horribly complex. Wouldn't be the first time we hear the "need more devs", while new kids on the block can't figure it out, but that's just what I heared...
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_transparency
"Network Transparency in its most general sense refers to the ability of a protocol to transmit data over the network in a manner which is transparent (invisible) to those using the applications that are using the protocol.
The term is often applied in the context of the X Window System which is able to transmit graphical data over the network and integrate it seamlessly with applications running and displaying locally."
So what I mean by network transparant widgets is that instead of client->server pixmap delivery, the client could send "1 button here, 2 button there, text there and this there", saving an insane amount of bandwith... And this would suck if one would have a client-server setup locally, but if you have Wayland server only, and Qt/Gtk taking care of the client role (automaticaly compatible with other instances; X.org/Wayland/XFree86), this would be eliminated.
The fact that all other OSes have client-side toolkits should tell you something about the way things should be done...
Leave a comment:
-
6 years ago, X couldn't do any of those things. Meanwhile, Y windows, Berlin, etc. all failed. What does that say to you?
Throwing all your money in with Wayland, which is being worked on -- occasionally -- by one guy, doesn't seem like a smart bet either.
A) Not ready yet;
B) Not done yet.
So?
Whilst X.Org might be a good foundation for todays systems, it appears to be horribly complex. Wouldn't be the first time we hear the "need more devs", while new kids on the block can't figure it out, but that's just what I heared...
Also, what does "widget network transparant[sic]" mean? There's no such thing as a "widget network".
"Network Transparency in its most general sense refers to the ability of a protocol to transmit data over the network in a manner which is transparent (invisible) to those using the applications that are using the protocol.
The term is often applied in the context of the X Window System which is able to transmit graphical data over the network and integrate it seamlessly with applications running and displaying locally."
So what I mean by network transparant widgets is that instead of client->server pixmap delivery, the client could send "1 button here, 2 button there, text there and this there", saving an insane amount of bandwith... And this would suck if one would have a client-server setup locally, but if you have Wayland server only, and Qt/Gtk taking care of the client role (automaticaly compatible with other instances; X.org/Wayland/XFree86), this would be eliminated.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post'Fanboys' wanting to push their opinion versus you wanting to push yours.
If you would not want to push yours than you would simply blindly ignore them.
But I still do not see why Wayland would suck. If the GTK and Qt toolkits are ported and altered to be widget network transparant and use already available SSH connections, then what the hell is the problem? Well... Xlib is, but it is not as if Xlib and other X.org source is not available. Hell if Wine can make *NIX compatible with Microsoft Windows (for crying out loud) it should be doable.
Minimalism, simplicity and strictly modern functionality just kicks ass. What if Wayland would be runnable, GTK/Qt would be widget network transparant and ported it could already exist alongside of X.org. And in the end if backwards compatibility in form of a seperate parser comes around...
Throwing all your money in with Wayland, which is being worked on -- occasionally -- by one guy, doesn't seem like a smart bet either.
Also, what does "widget network transparant[sic]" mean? There's no such thing as a "widget network".
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by siride View PostGreat. Now the Wayland fanboys will be back out in force here on Phoronix. Can't wait!
If you would not want to push yours than you would simply blindly ignore them.
But I still do not see why Wayland would suck. If the GTK and Qt toolkits are ported and altered to be widget network transparant and use already available SSH connections, then what the hell is the problem? Well... Xlib is, but it is not as if Xlib and other X.org source is not available. Hell if Wine can make *NIX compatible with Microsoft Windows (for crying out loud) it should be doable.
Minimalism, simplicity and strictly modern functionality just kicks ass. What if Wayland would be runnable, GTK/Qt would be widget network transparant and ported it could already exist alongside of X.org. And in the end if backwards compatibility in form of a seperate parser comes around...
Leave a comment:
-
It would b great to have an alternative to X but it seems that the development is too slow to make that happen in foreseeable future.
Leave a comment:
-
Well well. Wasn't it supposed to be 'just a playground to try the new DRI2'?
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: