SDL3 Will Keep Wayland Default At Least For The Time Being

[mrg666]

Ill take that as a yes.

So, we are done talking about your xorg BS? I will take this as a yes.

[mSparks]

So, we are done talking about your xorg BS? I will take this as a yes.

you moved on to talking about how much you love and aspire to defaults.
default gnome, default salary, default car etc.

You get what's given to you and thats all you deserve. I can appreciate that.

[mrg666]

you moved on to talking about how much you love and aspire to defaults.
default gnome, default salary, default car etc.

You get what's given to you and thats all you deserve. I can appreciate that.

I have no idea where default salary came from but it seems we will talk about cars next, which I have no interest to discuss any more nonsense with you. So, keep writing by yourself.

[mSparks]

I have no idea where default salary came from but it seems we will talk about cars next, which I have no interest to discuss any more nonsense with you. So, keep writing by yourself.

I dont think there is anything wrong with you earning minimum wage. I absolutely understand the attraction of linux to people like you, and why its important you have other people to tell you what you should use.

That's just not me, but I do absolutely understand how confusing that is for you.

[anda_skoa]

DMABUF access is linux kernel syscalls, there is nothing traditionally protocol about that at all, not remotely similar to anything X11 specifies

While a longer post with details and reference links is awaiting moderation/approval: you are trying to see difference where they aren't.

Both X11 and Wayland support passing dmabuf and shared memory handles (file descriptors) between their clients and their servers.

The difference is only where that support is being defined.
X11 added it via protocol extensions, Wayland has it in its core protocols.

[mrg666]

I dont think there is anything wrong with you earning minimum wage. I absolutely understand the attraction of linux to people like you, and why its important you have other people to tell you what you should use.

That's just not me, but I do absolutely understand how confusing that is for you.

You are throwing exceptions now, let's see when that crash is coming. You are starting to entertain actually.

[mSparks]

The difference is only where that support is being defined.

Exactly, because everything is a file eventually.
However, that difference is important.

X11 defines the byte stream explicitly, and therefore supports multiple OS's and distributed GUI.
Wayland leaves the details up to the linux kernel of the machine it is running on, and defines most of the "protocol" as linux syscalls.

further, Wayland is bound to DMABUFF, and RAM and VRAM access is a VERY slow lane for graphics.

The end result being, the only differences between Wayland and X11, is wayland is slower, only supports Linux kernels with DMABUFF support and lacks pretty much all of the features that developers rely on Linux/X11 for.

aka, Wayland breaks everything and offers nothing.

[anda_skoa]

X11 defines the byte stream explicitly

So does Wayland.
We've already covered that.

Wayland leaves the details up to the linux kernel of the machine it is running on, and defines most of the "protocol" as linux syscalls.

Not any more than X11 does, i.e. not at all.
Neither do need to specify how to open socket on the server side, nor how clients connect to it, nor how to write data into it or read from it.

That is all already specified by POSIX and similar documents.

So all X11 and Wayland specifications need to do is to describe how the data going through these connections are structured.
Hence both documents having sections on the so-called wire format, how messages are identified, who arguments are serialized and so forth.

further, Wayland is bound to DMABUFF

Clients can choose between such buffers and shared memory buffers.
Same as X11 clients.

What Wayland clients can not do is to fall back on transferring buffer data over the wire, they always pass one of the two types of buffer handles.
X11 clients will rarely have to use this fallback as XShm and/or DRI3 extensions are widely available in Xserver implementations.

and RAM and VRAM access is a VERY slow lane for graphics.

Exactly, hence the transfer of buffer handles (file descriptors) instead of buffer data.

I've written a comment that explains these things in more detail but it currently waiting approval due to the links of references.

[mSparks]

So does Wayland.
We've already covered that.

No, it doesn't
This link to the wipepipe dev during google summer of code 2019 back on page 8 clearly shows it doesn't

https://mstoeckl.com/notes/gsoc/blog.html

The most difficult technical challenge with Waypipe so far has been the buffer management logic, and the way this interacts with multithreading and reconnection support. In addition to the expected overflow and race conditions bugs involved, it's been surprisingly difficult to find a simple way to satisfy all the requirements without performing extra memory copies or using dynamic memory allocation for every file descriptor update message sent over the communication channel. I've chosen to use malloc all over the place, and deal with all the error checking that involves. Due to the complexity involved (and the fact the decompression is generally faster than the network), I still don't have a multithreaded message decompression pathway.

None of those are issues with a byte stream protocol like X11.
If wayland did, then there would by no multithreading, race or mem copy issues to cause problems.

[access]

Well, seems like I either have too much time on my hands this fool's day or I just like punishing myself. Either way, I filmed the ULTIMATE benchmark glxgears (using the es2gears port from mesa-utils that has both x11 and wayland support). Used a potato to film to get that X11 80's feeling and avoid any screen capture influences.

http://static.stellarea.net/video/es2gears_x11_gnome_45.mp4

http://static.stellarea.net/video/es2gears_wayland_gnome_45.mp4

As you can see X11 is massively faster... oh wait.

(T470p, i7-7820HQ, HD 630, Debian Trixie, GNOME 45 X11 and Wayland sessions)