GTK's X11 Backend Now Deprecated, Planned For Removal In GTK 5

[Luke]

Xwayland is for running X11 applications under Wayland.

There's no WX11 to run Wayland applications under X11.

Some Wayland compositors (wayfire included) have an x11 backend as one of several backend options. When I was porting Caja to be able to run under native Wayland, this allowed me to conveniently test it running under wayland from inside an x11 session rather like nested Xorg. Thus I was running caja as a wayland app inside an x11 session. That should be more generally possible. Thus, "WX11" could be a simple wrapper around this to automate setting up a wayland window for a wayland-only app in an x11 session

[Artim]

It is possible just enabling some feature in about:config firefox page verifying whether libva2 packages are installed. However I've previously installed nvidia vaapi driver pack. I don't know if it is necessary. The process is simple enough.

Sure, maybe Firefox already enables it by default, but I kinda doubt it as they just enabled it by default for AMD GPUs, and there VAAPI isn't just a lot more common than on Nvidia, it's a given. But that's still only video acceleration. I'm quite certain that Firefox won't be using any hardware acceleration beyond that on a large part of users systems.

[mrg666]

And it's not really that any actually important compatibility will be removed. XWayland will probably always be a thing, it just may not be installed by default in the future, but only when apps are installed needing it. The only thing that's actually being removed is X11 support in the first UI toolkit - no idea if iced/libcosmic even have X11 support that they could drop - but why should the people stuck in the 80s have any easier life than the early adopters of Wayland?

Interestingly, although COSMIC DE is Wayland only, libcosmic seems to have support for X11, if the following is correct.

https://pop-os.github.io/libcosmic-book/introduction.html

[HEX0]

And it's not really that any actually important compatibility will be removed. XWayland will probably always be a thing, it just may not be installed by default in the future, but only when apps are installed needing it. The only thing that's actually being removed is X11 support in the first UI toolkit - no idea if iced/libcosmic even have X11 support that they could drop - but why should the people stuck in the 80s have any easier life than the early adopters of Wayland?

I like how Niri (also smithay based) handles it.

https://github.com/YaLTeR/niri/wiki/Xwayland

X11 is very cursed, so built-in Xwayland support is not planned at the moment. However, there are multiple solutions to running X11 apps in niri.

I have xwayland-satellite installed but don't have it always running. I only start it when rarely launching steam or select few programs like gimp. Haven't ran Xwayland for like a month. I think in a few years for most users Xwayland might be completely optional.

https://github.com/Supreeeme/xwayland-satellite

[smitty3268]

The Xorg Server, a reference X11 implementation, was/is used by everything. Each fucking Linux distro in the past 25 years or so has used it by default.

Weston is being used by nothing.

I'm not moving goalposts, you don't understand what the issue is. Either knowledge or intelligence is missing, but most likely both.

I realize you're just going to attack me for speaking on the topic, but I have to say this seems to be a language barrier problem.

"Reference" implementations have nothing to do with how popular or used they are. In fact, often reference implementations are the simplest (and therefore less useful/used) options.

What you are clearly referring to here is what I would call a "de facto" implementation. a.k.a. one that everyone uses.

So as long as you keep talking about missing a "reference" implementation, people are going to keep responding the same way, because it doesn't mean what you seem to think.

[oiaohm]

What you are clearly referring to here is what I would call a "de facto" implementation. a.k.a. one that everyone uses.

Yes of course Avis does not ask the import question when you see de fecto implementation. Is this in merit or is it something else.

We have document after document that X11 protocol was not in use due to Merit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_UNIX-HATERS_Handbook

Fun point go to the X11 section and read the myth in this book that was published in 1994 that is a collection of older items most predate Linux existence. Fairly much most of those arguing for X11 today are making most of the same arguments.

Yes

FIGURE 2. Distributed at the X-Windows Conference

from that book. This is figure was distributed at the first Official X-Windows conference by the organizers and this is before Linux exists. The hate of X11 predates Wayland by 20 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerated-X yes people forgot at one point in time you had to buy the X11 server to get GPU drivers.

Then you have a time of Nvidia/ATI and others where you want to have accelerated graphics drivers you will use Xfree86 or X.org X11 server because that the only things we provide graphical drivers for on Linux/BSD..... Of course these limitations did not stop Directfb, microwindows/Nano-X , Y-windows(https://www.y-windows.org/about.html) from being made just prevent them from being successful. Having poor performance due to lack of accelerated graphics keep on limiting to killing these projects appearing attempting to complete with X11.

Please note wayland starts while Nvidia was still a hold out. Still wanting to put custom drivers into the userspace side that would restrict usage.

I am not saying Wayland is without it problem. But the idea that x.org X11 server/Xfree86 was the only things is absolutely not true. Most people were effectively forced to use x.org X11 server or xFree86 and if they did they did not get to use graphical acceleration hardware. This has changed now.

We are really using X11 on Linux to-do due to what would be classed as companies using the monopoly powers to control the market. Just think how it would be different if early Nvidia/ATI drivers could be used directly without X11 this would have meet we would have had competition over graphical solutions starting in the 1990s early 2000.

Avis does not what to have to admit that the state of x.org X11 server and Xfree86 before it was not natural. Yes the massive number of X11 windows managers is another suggestion it was not natural to have so limited numbers of X11 servers in use.

[avis]

avis again not true. In past 25 years they have Linux distributions not using the x.org server. Yes like embedded ones that had XDirectFB instead of Xorg Server. In fact there are distributions with alternative X11 with no Xorg Server as on option.

https://github.com/ghaerr/microwindows

avis I guess you never heard of Nano-X or XDirectFB. This is the problem your broad statements are not true. Most of the competition to Xorg X11 server was killed by Wayland and GPU vendors.

Has there been a single mainstream Linux distro that didn't use the Xorg server?

Why do you keep on lying through your teeth? I couldn't care less about marginal crap used by by 10 whole people in the entire world.

[oiaohm]

Has there been a single mainstream Linux distro that didn't use the Xorg server?

The answer is yes because X.org server has not existed as long as Debian and other Mainstream Distributions did to start off with. Xfree86 then Xorg server for most of the old mainstream distributions. There was a few mainstream distributions in the 1990s that came with Accelerated X because xfree86 did not have accelerated graphics drivers.

Accelerated X predates Xfree86 and was closed source. Yes Accelerated X/ Xi Graphics appeared on SLS the predecessor to Slackware well before xfree86 or X386 did. Yes that was a mainstream distribution at the time.

Avis do you class Android as Linux distribution? Yes android is a very custom distribution but its also mainstream.

Avis there have quite a few points in Linux history where different mainstream distributions did not use X.org server.

Remember you are attempt to move the goal posts adding mainstream now. The ones I have listed have documentation that they have been used by at last 1000 people. Some like Directfb are up in the multi of millions.

Avis you also need to be a lot more clear on define of mainstream. There are lot of mainstream embedded distributions for industrial usages that never had X11 instead had Directfb reason why some parties went to the effort to start Directfb2..

Avis the Linux graphical space has not been as uniform as you are making out. You need to define what section of Linux you are in fact talking about or you are horrible wrong. Yes mainstream is not enough words.

Avis there are over 1000 Linux distributions that can use the title mainstream.

[MorrisS.]

Sure, maybe Firefox already enables it by default, but I kinda doubt it as they just enabled it by default for AMD GPUs, and there VAAPI isn't just a lot more common than on Nvidia, it's a given. But that's still only video acceleration. I'm quite certain that Firefox won't be using any hardware acceleration beyond that on a large part of users systems.

Here the list the options to set in Firefox in order to apply video codecs hardware acceleration. They are just 3 if I'm not wrong.
Check if libva packs are installed before:

• libva-drm2;
• libva-wayland2;
• libva-x11-2;
• libva2.

What to set in about:config page in Firefox:

1. MOZ_ENABLE_WAYLAND=1;
2. gfx.webrender.all (true)
3. media.ffmpeg.vaapi.enabled (true).

Look at about:support page in the codec section at the right column whether VP9 and H.264 videocodecs are green. hflvN1f.png

[avis]

The answer is yes because X.org server has not existed as long as Debian and other Mainstream Distributions did to start off with. Xfree86 then Xorg server for most of the old mainstream distributions. There was a few mainstream distributions in the 1990s that came with Accelerated X because xfree86 did not have accelerated graphics drivers.

Accelerated X predates Xfree86 and was closed source. Yes Accelerated X/ Xi Graphics appeared on SLS the predecessor to Slackware well before xfree86 or X386 did. Yes that was a mainstream distribution at the time.

Avis do you class Android as Linux distribution? Yes android is a very custom distribution but its also mainstream.

Avis there have quite a few points in Linux history where different mainstream distributions did not use X.org server.

Remember you are attempt to move the goal posts adding mainstream now. The ones I have listed have documentation that they have been used by at last 1000 people. Some like Directfb are up in the multi of millions.

Avis you also need to be a lot more clear on define of mainstream. There are lot of mainstream embedded distributions for industrial usages that never had X11 instead had Directfb reason why some parties went to the effort to start Directfb2..

Avis the Linux graphical space has not been as uniform as you are making out. You need to define what section of Linux you are in fact talking about or you are horrible wrong. Yes mainstream is not enough words.

Avis there are over 1000 Linux distributions that can use the title mainstream.

Xorg is a continuation of XFree86 (the only one relevant for Linux distros BTW), i.e. basically the same thing. It's 100% binary and source compatible with XFree86. You can even use XFree86 input/output server modules with Xorg granted they are of the same architecture and built against a compatible version of glibc.

Android is not a Linux "distro". It cannot run Linux applications by default. No Wayland, no X11, no glibc, no systemd, no Linux package management, nothing. The only "Linux" component is Android is a fixed version highly patched Linux kernel with stable API and ABI. The only Linux distro that features something similar is RHEL and it's not a common/consumer Linux distro at all. It's primarily for headless enterprise servers. Other "enterprise" Linux distros? Debian? Ubuntu LTS? SLES? No API/ABI compatibility or guarantee.

You just cannot stop lying.

I don't understand why it's so difficult for you to admit you're dead wrong.