GNOME 3.29.2 Released As The Second Step Towards GNOME 3.30

[TemplarGR]

Let me introduce something to You. It's called "client isolation". That's right, X isn't capable of it, Wayland is. It's very important thing in security, and X can't do it. Well, I say more - Windows and macOS can do it as well. What about different DPI for each screen? Another thing that Xorg cannot handle properly. Xorg isn't suitable for 21st century, that's true.

"NIH" when Wayland is made by a lot of Xorg peoples? Lol. Wayland exist not because "NIH", but because of Xorg limitations which you can't solve without rewriting from scratch (which Wayland does). Wayland doesn't need hacks to ensure correct display (no tearing, lag's and flickering) which Xorg needs.

This simply false. You are ignorant like most of the forum here and have drank the red hat kool-aid:

1) Wayland is not a rewritting from scratch of X. X is something VERY different from what Wayland does. Anyone who claims otherwise, like most people on this thread, is delusional and ignorant and his opinions can be safely dismissed.

2) Xorg limitations exist, but could be circumvented with proper evolutional redesigns. The catch being that those would break backwards compatibility, exactly like Wayland does (and needs Xserver on top of Wayland to run pretty much anything...). It would be VERY simple for Xorg devs to keep breaking backwards compatibility in the process of rewritting X, and just offering a backwards compatible "compatibility branch" to help with older software, that could kick-in automatically. That way, they could keep on improving X, without having to convince the entire ecosystem to use Wayland.

Wayland was invented back in a time where DRI didn't exist IIRC. OR at least only DRI1 which was very limited. Back then the reasoning for making Wayland was performance, not "security". But now that performance is a non-issue, people keep blabbling on about "security" as a benefit, because quite frankly it is their only card to play to try to justify this Wayland abomination that still is not production ready more than a decade later. And development advances at a snail's pace.

Let me tell you: Security could be vastly improved on Xorg if developers focused on that instead of wasting time on Wayland. Yes, that would probably break backwards compatibility, so what? Wayland does break compatibility in a worse way...

You people have no argument, Wayland was a fucking waste of human resources, and mark my words, it will take many years until it can totally replace X. That is, until it can run as the default without any issues and run Wayland-native applications instead of XWayland all the time...

[TemplarGR]

I see some ignorant users calling me a troll here. So let me ask all those users, do they use Wayland currently as their daily driver and what application do they run with it? Because i can guarantee that no one sane uses it for anything other than experimentation today. It has far too many problems.

Anyone who says differently is LYING. It is the same situation back when KDE 4.0 was released and a legion of morons came to forums and claimed that KDE was fine and excellent and had no problems and called people who complained "trolls". Seems a lot of retards on the Linux ecosystem have the pathological need to defend unstable and unfinished software and uneeded redesigns for some reason.

Come talk to me again when Wayland is usable. Somewhere in 2029.

[TemplarGR]

What a tool.

"They might as well just put the effort into redesigning X"

Wayland is a redesign of X, moron

"Wayland has no reason to exist now other than the NIH"

Wayland was started by X devs and is administered under the same umbrella as X i.e. Wayland and X are from the same place and people, so how can it be 'not invented here' syndrome?

First of all, stop calling me names. It is too sad that Michael doesn't moderate his forum a little. You can state your opinion without calling names someone kid, especially since in real life i am probably stronger than you since i go to the gym regurarly for years and could kick your ass, but sure, call me a moron over the internet.

Secondly, Wayland is not a redesign of X. That moronic statement right there proves you do not know what you are talking about. Wayland is a very different way of handling things than X. It is not even a server. So yeah, educate yourself before calling others morons.

[awesz]

At the end of the day, X.Org reigns as the only and one. Red Hat lock-in? Not on my watch.

[starshipeleven]

I want to ask. Why does everyone compare Wayland to X.Org? X.Org isn't the only X11 server on Earth...

Are you sure? Afaik it's pretty much the only one used on large scale.

[starshipeleven]

Doesn't matter what it is considered to be. Wayland is going to be a freaking mess for the next decade at least, while providing no tangible benefit to end users. It is a disaster. They might as well just put the effort into redesigning X. The major issues Wayland was supposed to solve were solved by DRI3, Wayland has no reason to exist now other than the NIH syndrome. Any additional issues with X could be solved procedurally over the years instead of just abandoning for a retarded solution that still isn't production ready after a decade and will probably never be.

FYI, Wayland IS an effort in redesigning X.

You probably grossly underestimate the complexity involved (not necessarily in actually just making it, but to actually get all parties to be interested in it and contribute to it).

[cybertraveler]

you just replied to a Troll.

Do you think so? I thought that at first, but then I thought of some other plausible explanations for this odd post.

[cybertraveler]

I want to ask. Why does everyone compare Wayland to X.Org? X.Org isn't the only X11 server on Earth...

I know the difference. I refered to X quite a lot in my post. The situation is a little muddy, because X.org is the main and most relevant X11 server. There's nothing that comes even close in terms of features, extension support and usage. Most the other X11 servers out there serve a simple purpose as being something to write to for headless systems, or as a translator to let clients speak X11 but render onto an entirely different display server tech.

So essentially: the Wayland protocols are a replacement for X.Org. Gnome, KDE, enlightenment and many other desktops on many distros are going from working on top of X.Org to working via their own Wayland protocol implementation. There are some shared libraries they are using, but it's not anywhere near to the extent that they rely on a single X.Org project.

There are people that are confused about what Wayland is. I'm not one of them.

[Charlie68]

I agree that Wayland is the future, but we must admit that there are still problems and issues to be solved. So personally I'm not in a hurry, when I'm ready I'll use it, for the moment I limit myself to using Wayland occasionally and to report bugs. Even Ubuntu on the Lts version has had to surrender and send Xorg by default, there will be some reason!

[Anvil]

Wayland has been hugely successful. There are huge numbers of programs, libraries, toolkits that have adopted it. There are multiple Wayland server implementations and the work on making Wayland viable has never once ceased: the pace of improvement to Wayland is only increasing.

There are huge advantages to using Wayland. Some of them being:

- It does not have to be backwards compatible with decades worth of X apps. This means they can create a clean, simple design (not a mess as you described it). This makes implementing Wayland easier. This means you are less likely to get bugs and less likely to get security issues than if you were to simply forever build ontop of X.

- Wayland provider far better support for isolation of clients. This has practical security benefits including: your browser app can't read the keystrokes going to your text editor app or your password manager app. This has not been practically implemented on X in a way that most X users can benefit from. It might be because practically implementing it on X could require a large redesign of X. What is Wayland, if not: a large redesign of X. There are Xorg developers working on Wayland to make it everything they wish Xorg could be.

- Wayland is designed to work well with real, modern hardware. It's not focused on supporting outdated hardware designs or hypothetical future designs which may never be built because they are impractical. This again has the benefit of allowing Wayland to be a more simple design that is very much fit for purpose.

- Practically speaking, X is failing in many areas which should not be a problem in 2018. One example is how X badly handles full screen applications, lock screens and screensavers. Wayland has been specifically designed to make these 3 things just-work and without any hacks or corner-case issues. There's actually a phoronix article on this: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...item&px=OTI5MQ

Wayland isn't finished yet, but we are far enough along that all the popular GUI toolkits can natively speak it, lots of the popular desktop environments can serve as Wayland compositors and special efforts have been made or are being made on loads of the most popular programs to make them work well on Wayland (eg Firefox).

I for one am looking forward to running a lighter, more graceful, more secure and potentially faster desktop environment in the future that is built with the Wayland protocols. Wayland wont be perfect but it will be better than X and will make a GNU/Linux desktop more competitive with a Mac OS X and Windows desktop.

you just replied to a Troll.