Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The X API Is About 15 Times Bigger Than Wayland

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • phoronix
    started a topic The X API Is About 15 Times Bigger Than Wayland

    The X API Is About 15 Times Bigger Than Wayland

    Phoronix: The X API Is About 15 Times Bigger Than Wayland

    For those curious about the size of the X11 API in relation to Wayland, it's about fifteen times bigger...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTIwODM

  • daniels
    replied
    nearly two years later, this is still holding true:
    https://twitter.com/nwnk/status/2068270475649025

    'let me summarize every wayland discussion on the internet: I'VE SEEN A WINDOW SYSTEM SO I KNOW HOW THEY SHOULD WORK PAY ATTENTION TO MEEEEEE'

    Leave a comment:


  • nerdopolis
    replied
    Originally posted by Ex-Cyber View Post
    Network transparency will be lost at the display server. There's no reason it can't be built into higher-level toolkits/frameworks.
    Network transparency is being lost at the PROTOCOL, where apps do not connect to a display server over the network, and can actually be then provided by the display server.

    Instead you get your local Weston, and the Weston on the remote machine. The Weston on the remote machine fowards the windows individualy to your local Weston, acting like a proxy.

    Kristan demonstated this, At about the 1:12:00 mark.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...qKysfI#t=4322s

    IMHO this is better, as with X, if you lose your connection to a remote server, all your apps running remotly die.
    As the apps on the remote machine will be running under the remote machines local Wayland server, the apps won't lose connection to the server

    Leave a comment:


  • F i L
    replied
    Originally posted by frantaylor View Post
    LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE TRAIN HAS LEFT THE RAILS

    YES INDEED HE PROPOSES USING REMOTE X DISPLAY AS A WAY TO DISPLAY REMOTE VIDEO.

    THROW AWAY 40 YEARS OF VIDEO COMPRESSION RESEARCH, SPEW RAW BITMAPS OVER THE INTERNET. WHEEE!
    I don't care if you write like a teenage valley girl, that was the best laugh I've had in a while, LOL

    Leave a comment:


  • frantaylor
    replied
    Kill x windows kill it now

    Years and years and years of user interface research tells us that the way to a better user experience is to make it more immediate. Respond quickly and interactively. Interpretation and response to user gestures requires rapid and immediate processing.

    But here we are in 2012, and the linux desktop community treats its display devices as if they were on the other end of a network connection.

    NO WONDER linux has lost the destop war. They didn't even show up, they just "phoned it in".

    Leave a comment:


  • frantaylor
    replied
    OpenGL and Remote X: a match made in HELL

    X Windows is a DISASTER for 3-D.

    X Windows API is chock full of asynchronous APIs: "Do this when you get around to it, I have other stuff to do in the meantime"

    OpenGL is chock full of synchronous APIs: "Do this RIGHT NOW and I will wait until you are done"

    WELCOME to HELL. This is WHY X Windows is DOOMED on the desktop. Its asynchronous, queued, remote-event-driven API is NONSENSE when you have SUPER-DUPER fast graphics hardware locally. There is NO POINT to queuing graphics primitives that take longer to enqueue than it does to JUST DRAW THEM IMMEDIATELY.

    Oh but NO, we have to put up with CRAPPY delayed GRAPHICS because there are WHINERS out there who think that "remote X" is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but when you ask them, "do you actually USE remote X" they say "well, it's okay, but the interactive response is so miserable, I just set up VNC instead and now I can get my work done better".

    Leave a comment:


  • frantaylor
    replied
    Originally posted by nnine View Post
    The only advantage of Wayland seems to be to get rid of some old APIs in X which are not used in modern programs.
    Well you START OUT with a TOTALLY HYPERBOLIC lie and then it just GOES ON.

    This is making things more complicated instead of simpler.
    EGAD the point is to SIMPLIFY THE RENDERING PROCESS. Separate OUT the legacy X code and put it in an environment WHERE IT CAN STILL RUN AT FULL EFFICIENCY.

    Imagine moving a window of a running movie player from a mobile device to the TV when coming home... or all kinds of interactions which could be designed when people could move the windows of their computers to a common display
    LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE TRAIN HAS LEFT THE RAILS

    YES INDEED HE PROPOSES USING REMOTE X DISPLAY AS A WAY TO DISPLAY REMOTE VIDEO.

    THROW AWAY 40 YEARS OF VIDEO COMPRESSION RESEARCH, SPEW RAW BITMAPS OVER THE INTERNET. WHEEE!

    ----

    X Windows DOES NOT NEED an ADVOCATE. EVERYONE hates it, starting with THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE IT.

    IT NEVER WORKED RIGHT. Network display in a desktop environment is a CROCK. WHOSE D-BUS are you talking to? WHY? Does it make ANY SENSE? Shooting the clipboard contents over the network for NO REASON! 3-D doesn't work, it has NEVER worked, it NEVER WILL WORK. Transparency SUCKS! HOW MUCH CRAP do you have to shove back and forth over the network to make your fantasy work? NOT ENOUGH, because it STILL doesn't work right.
    Last edited by frantaylor; 10-22-2012, 10:22 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • smitty3268
    replied
    Originally posted by nnine View Post
    For new programs, network transparency will be lost.
    Interesting. I wonder how you come by this information, since the Wayland developers themselves have said that it will work just fine. I guess you know better than they do, right?

    Leave a comment:


  • Ex-Cyber
    replied
    Originally posted by nnine View Post
    For new programs, network transparency will be lost.
    Network transparency will be lost at the display server. There's no reason it can't be built into higher-level toolkits/frameworks.

    Leave a comment:


  • nnine
    replied
    Why I think Wayland is bad.

    The only advantage of Wayland seems to be to get rid of some old APIs in X which are not used in modern programs. The problem is, those are required for backwards compatiblity. So instead of having to keep around a few old APIs, a switch to Wayland means that now Wayland + X has to be maintained (X for backwards compatiblity). This is making things more complicated instead of simpler. There is not even a very good reason for this, as the same things could be accomplished by extending X, as they admit on their FAQ:

    > It's entirely possible to incorporate the buffer exchange and update models that Wayland is built on into X.

    Of course, Wayland proponents would say that I am spreading FUD, but to me the disadvantages are rather obvious: If X is kept only has a backwards compatiblity option, it will bitrot and eventually be removed from the default install. At that point, backwards compatiblity will defacto be lost. Also, forward compatiblity is immediately lost for all programs which rely on the Wayland API. They will not work with X. Maybe common toolkits will support both protocols for some time to mitigate some of those effects, but this too makes things more complicated instead of simplier.

    For new programs, network transparency will be lost. Maybe some people do not see any point in network transparency, but I use it every day. With internet everywhere this is actually a feature which gets more useful and interesting in time. Also, people just do not seem to realize how cool this feature could be, if it would be further exploited instead of hidden from the user. Imagine moving a window of a running movie player from a mobile device to the TV when coming home... or all kinds of interactions which could be designed when people could move the windows of their computers to a common display and then the programs could interact by drag and drop or cut&past or whatever. Or just accessing your running X session from any device whatsoever and pick up work where you left. To me, the complete notion that programs run in a specific device and can only interact using the display of this device seems rather limiting and from pre-internet times, but this is exactly what switching to Wayland means for the future. Ofcourse, the common trend in GUI development on Linux seem to be to dumb things down, instead of letting the user fully exploit the technical potential of their system. In that sense, I can see that some people might think that network transparency is just not needed. I guess to some being able to play 3D shooters in a rotating window or similar useless crap is cool enough.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X