Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu 20.04 GNOME X.Org vs. Wayland Session Performance Impact For Gaming

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

  • Originally posted by sdack View Post
    Just more of the same excuses.
    just more of the same complete lack of clue
    Originally posted by sdack View Post
    If Wayland wasn't supposed to support X11 then it's actually quite surprising to see that X11 software runs under it.
    x11 software doesn't run under wayland. it runs under x11 on x11 server which itself is wayland software and runs under wayland. that x11 server is called xwayland
    Originally posted by sdack View Post
    Nobody but a few nerds care how it's handled under the hood, but what matters is the end result.
    nobody but a few idiots would argue that "doesn't run at all" is better than "runs at 99.99% speed"
    Last edited by pal666; 01 April 2020, 06:26 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by sdack View Post
      It was supposed to support X11 and to replace it, which is why it has the support for it or we wouldn't be having this discussion.
      it was never supposed to support x11, there's x11 for that. it was supposed to be x12, but obviously there's a lot of legacy x11 software in the wild which will never be ported to x12, so there should be some way to run in under wayland. just like some legacy win32 software will never be ported to linux and we need wine to run it and not necessarily faster than native linux build
      Originally posted by sdack View Post
      I guess you'll never stop making excuses and keep trying to side-track the lack of performance. It's only not going away. Only people will go away and stop paying attention to it, which I assume is why after all these years it just doesn't find many fans.
      i guess you'll never stop being an idiot

      Comment


      • Originally posted by sdack View Post
        No, you're just limiting your own comprehension. Of course can one support it and replace it.
        moron, what you are trying to describe is called "extend". "replace" is mutually incompatible with "support". "extend" is what x11 was doing since 1987 and by now it's in a dead end

        Comment


        • Originally posted by sdack View Post
          No, there is nothing "legacy" about running games on Linux.
          moron, nobody said that. "running games" isn't legacy. but some games are legacy. and some games are not legacy by themselves, but use sdl which have native wayland support, but can be run in legacy x11 mode. and this benchmark was run in legacy x11 mode
          Originally posted by sdack View Post
          when you say Wayland isn't supposed to support X11 (when in fact it is).
          in fact you are idiot who is unable to learn
          Originally posted by sdack View Post
          You're not going to claim Wayland has turned Windows apps into "legacy Windows apps", or do you?
          of course not, that was linux. linux has turned windows apps into "legacy Windows apps"
          Originally posted by sdack View Post
          do you in fact want Wayland to be the successor to X11 when you give X11 apps the "legacy" status.
          you can't have successor to x11 without giving x11 apps the "legacy" status. if they aren't legacy, then there's no succession
          Originally posted by sdack View Post
          Your problem only is that Wayland isn't a suitable successor
          that's your (imaginary) problem
          Originally posted by sdack View Post
          So who wants to use Wayland when the most demanding applications still run better under old X11?
          games will run better under wayland. this benchmark was not running them under wayland, it was running them under x11 or under x11+wayland
          Last edited by pal666; 01 April 2020, 06:11 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by sdack View Post
            Oh, I know. And you're adding more excuses to the pile. Nothing is changing these benchmark results.
            moron, nobody is trying to change these results. these results are wonderful: wayland is so fast that stacking it on top of x11 doesn't make games slower. which means getting rid of x11 will make games even faster

            Comment


            • Wayland was never a practical, but a political project. It set out to eliminate what was already dead, and people sucked it up anyway. And they chose a radical approach, when people needed a practical one. Why it's still around isn't because of it's politics, but because it doesn't have competition other than what's already dead and because it serves GNOME as a fix, because "GNOME" and "fast" aren't words that appear often in one sentence. Users then care more for the theme of their mouse cursor than for Wayland. Anyone who cares about running games fast avoids GNOME and chooses a Xfce, LXDE, MATE or some other light-weight desktop. By the time Wayland gains a major significance will it be as old as X11 was at the time of it's introduction. That's not practical at all.

              Systemd is practical. It's in fact so practical that it caused a political outrage. FFmpeg is practical, but it's fork avconv was motivated by politics and hasn't gained much significance. Meson&Ninja, much disliked by some for political reasons, but proving to be practical, keeps gaining significance. LLVM, started as a practical project, then people tried turning it into a political one, but it kept it's course and has given us many practical uses and positively influenced GCC's development. The Linux kernel itself is one of the most practical projects in IT history. A lot of politics surround it, but as long as Linus Torvalds is in charge is this not changing. Hurd is political. I could go on giving examples of practical and political projects, but the point is that the more people avoid politics and instead aim for practicality do projects get a far more support and achieve goals far sooner.

              So whenever you're telling people how Wayland will become practical one day are you just underlining how political it still is. That's how 10 years can pass - or 15+ pages.
              Last edited by sdack; 01 April 2020, 08:09 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by intelfx View Post

                Would you kindly fuck off and stop editing/wiping other users' posts just because you felt so?

                Does this site has any kind of participation rules or something that would permit this kind of behavior?
                You are a traitor!

                Let the other desktops die then and hell take over!

                I fucked off now. Happy?! You think 144Hz rules the forum, don't you?!
                Last edited by tildearrow; 01 April 2020, 01:11 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by sdack View Post
                  Wayland was never a practical, but a political project. It set out to eliminate what was already dead, and people sucked it up anyway. And they chose a radical approach, when people needed a practical one.
                  they actually chose practical approach. x11 still works, while they are working on better alternative, so everyone is happy
                  Originally posted by sdack View Post
                  By the time Wayland gains a major significance will it be as old as X11 was at the time of it's introduction. That's not practical at all.
                  that's most practical of all available alternatives since you didn't provide more practical one, did you?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by sdack View Post
                    Wayland was never a practical, but a political project.
                    No Wayland starts from a practical problem. Linux X11 desktop has a lower security rating than Windows and OS X even with XACE enabled there are too many things in the X11 protocol not designed securely.

                    Originally posted by sdack View Post
                    Anyone who cares about running games fast avoids GNOME and chooses a Xfce, LXDE, MATE or some other light-weight desktop.
                    Liar Liar Pants On Fire with this statement.
                    https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...-1904-desktops
                    This is a set of benchmarks before the recent improvements. Xfce and Mate only once by more than margin of testing error in that old benchmark does it beats GNOME Shell Wayland in gaming every other time it they lose. LXDE was not beating normal Gnome on X11 back then most of the time either.

                    Basically a person choosing lightweight desktop to get performance is making a mistake. The recent changes could make LXDE slower Gnome Wayland. Yes the general Gnome has got faster as well since then. Xfce. LXDE and Mate don't have the developers to put into performance optimisation work like Gnome and KDE does and it shows in game benchmarks a lot. Yes there have been no major performance improvements in Xfce, LXDE and Mate since 19.04 so now Xfce and Mate are losing by more margin and LXDE has basically no advantage.

                    Originally posted by sdack View Post
                    So whenever you're telling people how Wayland will become practical one day are you just underlining how political it still is. That's how 10 years can pass - or 15+ pages.
                    No wayland is practical today because wayland desktops have a higher security rating than X11 ones to start off with. Also wayland desktops are very well performing over all. Really there is no point benchmarking gnome wayland desktop against xfce or mate because they would not provide it with any form of challenge because xfce and mate are slow in performance.

                    sdack you have been wanting to use these benchmark alone to make a point you really should have read more. Do note that prior set of benchmarks had one application using wayland backend and the wayland version of gnome kicked everything ass back then before improvements.

                    For a lot of games the gnome wayland desktop has passed the practical level of performance quite a while ago if they class xfce and mate performance as acceptable.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

                      Read that again.

                      X deliberately specifies "mechanism, not policy" for how windows interact. As such, an additional specification beyond the X protocol itself was needed for client interoperation.

                      This line particularly and that line is slightly wrong as I will point out at the end. Inter-Client Communication Conventions Manual (ICCCM) like it or not is not part of the X11 protocol and still is not part of the X11 protocol. This leads to many parties implementing X11 stuff and deciding to ingnore ICCCM. Yes 1.0 and 2.0 of that standard are not 100 percent compatible with each other so you have to implement both. Add on the 10 others done you have a mess. There were 2 verations done in gtk, 3 in Qt, Tk made another... Basically toolkits cause a plague of incompatibility because that standard was optional.

                      Wayland wl_data_source and wl_data_offer was in wayland from the start as in the clipboard. So it did not take 15 years for the wayland protocol to have clipboard as it is in fact a day one Wayland protocol feature. The dispute is in implementation of compositors is how to do clipboard securely and not be a data leak that been the slow bit.



                      Lot of the parties you listed their implemented their own quirked versions of X11 protocol and servers.

                      https://blog.martin-graesslin.com/blog/tag/systray/

                      System Tray is still a wild wild west. Yes that is the 1993 CDE system tray applications don't work on new KDE. If you dig around they don't work on Gnome either.

                      Welcome to another area of multi incompatible standards and implementations that have multi cases of I don't work any more or I don't work on this desktop but I work on this other one.



                      And that in fact wrong the issue is not that the stuff was not implemented the problem is it was not made part of standard/protocol and standardised. When x.org took over the X11 protocol and the maintainer to release new versions the first thing they did was make ICCCM mandatory feature yes this is 2004 when x.org came the official reference for X11 protocol did ICCCM come part of it. A lot of features were added to the X11 protocol over the years 1993 X11 protocol is still being modified. Reality when all the desktop features appeared X11 protocol was open to modification or making standard with new desktop feature mandatory by standard yet this did not happen for a hell long time.

                      So the year when clipboard support comes part of X11 protocol required protocols is 2004 in other words 17 years since the start of X11 or 16 years from when ICCCM was first proposed. Basically that gives the 16 years for 2 versions of ICCCM and 10 other things doing the same thing to pop up that are all incompatible with each other in different ways.

                      Welcome to one of the major reasons why X11 protocol came a disaster mess of protocols there was no requirement to propose problem sit down and work out one way todo it. Instead each party implemented their own and worked on the idea of survival of the fitest.

                      Yes the survival of the fittest idea is also what lead to the KDE vs Gnome disaster where neither side had to consider compatibility with each other early on 2004 is when this survival of fittest idea slows down and focus on proper lets make unified standards between desktop bits start.

                      X11 protocol was developed early on in a very out of control way. Wayland has started with very strict policy on how stuff has to be done from the start line.

                      I also love that over 70 percent of the optional protocols x.org supported in 2004 were internationally broken and when no one complained removed since 2004 to now. And they are still breaking and removing optional protocols and some of these protocols turns out person wrote them and no application ever used them. This explains why Wayland Protocol has a lean and mean policy.

                      X11 protocol and it optional protocols have been a total disaster mess.
                      I would like to respond, but I find it hard to pinpoint a thought worth arguing with in your post.
                      Let me break the news to you - world did not start with Linux, KDE or Gnome. And nobody will care about these Wayland/X11 discussions in 10 years. Maybe as a historical curiosity, how X11 was well developed, has spread to all Unix workstations in a couple of years, and continued to be used for 33 years (and counting). And how and why Wayland was still not widely adopted 11 years after initial release.
                      In 1990, we were programming on X11 using different toolkits, Athena, OpenLook, Motif. We had cut and paste among different toolkits, which used ICCCM.
                      You can read Motif documentation from the 1993 about how it is done. For simple text based exchange, toolkit handles cut and paste on all relevant widgets.
                      http://www.linux-france.org/article/...html/ch17.html
                      Out of curiosity, I have tried Wayland on my development machine, that is OpenSuSE 15.0. I can't use the latest release, since I have real customers who rely on binary compatibility of my software.
                      Anyhow, somewhat predictably, Wayland immediately crashes the computer, I had to do a hard reset.
                      https://forum.kde.org/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=156354
                      Back to X11, I have work to do.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X