X11 vs Wayland. Discuss

X11 vs Wayland. Discuss.

Other urls found in this thread:

bugs.freedesktop.org/reports.cgi?product_id=12&datasets=NEW)
phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=x_wayland_situation&num=1
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>bloat vs autism

X11 has tools that work right now.
Wayland is a better protocol.

People who want something that works will stick to X11, people who want something that is better in theory will use wayland.
What is there to discuss?

How does wayland deal with network transparency?

Perhaps you should start a discussion when creating a thread instead of prompting others to do this for you. Looks more like a /r/ thread otherwise.

my question is how many people care about network transparency in this day and age, and why they do so

>not caring about remote access on a server OS

>caring about graphical applications on a server OS

Why do you need a GUI on a server?

I like looking at graphs.

phpSysInfo, Ajenti; there are tons of control panel type solutions that you can just access through a web server.

Xorg is a disease that will never die, like AIDS. Wayland will never work independently without the xorg backdoor installed.

Grafana

>ssh to computer
>launch vnc server on remote computer
>setup ssh tunnel from local to remote vnc port
>launch vnc viewer to local port
Can I do this with wayland?

Neither. Framebuffer is the only sane technology.

netdata you fack

compton

This thread is filled with ignorant fuckers. If Wayland is the "Linux desktop" then all the advantages are gone.
You do know that Wayland's design effectively destroys any choice and customization right? Wayland's protocol is basically an isolation prison that requires "big DE's" and destroys choice. The protocol moves everything into one central place called the "compositor" this machinery must provide:
the window manager
the hotkey daemon
the compositing effects
the windowing server
screen reading tools
screenshots
screen casting
magnifying glass tools
global dictionary tools
etc etc etc everything.
Wayland's design makes it impossible to write a portable hotkey daemon for instance. Supposedly for "security reasons". Wayland is a GNOME dev's dream, it kills the ability of people to control their own system. If you're actually excited for Wayland you either thoroughly misunderstand what it brings and just like it because it's new or you're a drooling GNOME-lover who hates customization.

saved ;^)

How do you explain this, then?

Hmm yes?

Only thing wayland can't is X11(would be Wayland) over ssh.

>X11 is finally stable, bug-free and apps work on it
>find out it has a hard to fix issue
>chuck everything out and switch to wayland
>not stable, full of bugs and apps dont work

welcome to the GNU development philosophy

>make a simple statement about a complex topic
>stop discussing
Okay... :/

X works just fine for me, I see no reason to switch.

I'll wait a bit longer and then make the jump if I see a nice WM.

Wayland has rotating windows

How do they tile?

Why don't you fix the bugs instead of complaining? fucking retard

>working for free
sorry im not a sanders supporter

>network transparency?

I fear that we will lose this. The answer always seems to be:

>how many people care about network transparency

..and I have the impression that this always come from people who never actually use it. It also seems like most of those who say this don't know how.

I ssh into boxes and run simple GUI programs over the network all the time, just like I have the last 10+ years. It's a feature that I'd really miss if it goes away.

This is as silly as saying that you don't need to have a car because you can just walk instead. Sure, that's .. possible but it's not exactly the same.

then shut the fuck up

>X11
>bug-free
On an ideal world maybe.

make me comrade
wayland is shit and your shilling aint gonna fix it

Why not use VNC or a similar software?
I see no reason for something like this to be part of the display server.
(Then again I'm using systemd which packs even more irrelevant stuff.)

go away brown phone poster

wut mate?

I'm curious, what "hard to fix issue" does Xorg have? I'm genially wondering.

I do remember X sometimes crashing when using the radeon drivers. That was .. 5? years ago. Or more.

It's nice if Wayland becomes a viable alternative so those who want to can use that - as long as we get to keep Xorg too. I don't mind that people develop GNOME as long as I can stick with XFCE4.

I'm just curious what's "wrong" with Xorg. It seems to do it's job just fine, it seems rock solid stable (I use it daily, have for years and years) and it does what it's supposed to do.

The API is messy as fuck.

Not that it matters since you do everything through wrappers like gtk and qt anyway.

There are numerous small issues ( bugs.freedesktop.org/reports.cgi?product_id=12&datasets=NEW) and security holes that are impossible to fix because the source is a nightmare. Yeah, it does its job on the foreground but it is easier building something new than cleaning or remaking Xorg. Still for time being X >> Wayland.

I'm curious about the particular "hard to fix issue" myself, but I feel that the biggest issue is that it's a fuckton of old not very well documented code that a lot of software depends on.

I wrote a simple program for X as a school project once, it was trial and error getting it to work and I never understood how all the X-specific types relate to each other.

I run the Xilinx tools displayed on my Yuge monitor setup, and they run on another box with the fpga devel board plugged in.

network transparency is real convenient when you need it.

X11 is a shit depreciated and Wayland is a meme.

Linux audio server and display server is a joke!

x just werks, im good

i dont have to worry about being forced to switch because we'll all be dead by the time x is depreciated

If you use X11 the desktop windows act just like native windows. They are hidden and raised independently by your window manager just like any local app. It's not blocks of pixels going over the network.

If you have a fast network, it's great. No apparent latency. X11 was written in the 386/486 era with 10bt Ethernet. Throwing modern hardware at it, even with its old / potentially obsolete architecture makes it fly.

The specific issue I was referring to was X11 doesn't sandbox windows, so your calculator app could take input from your mail client.

If you want to find more information about X issues:
phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=x_wayland_situation&num=1

Someone could make a wayland compositor that wouldn't provide this machinery and instead provide hooks for other programs

I'm sure when xfwm gets ported to wayland it will follow this route

Does Wayland work with XFCE? No? Then it's absolute trash.

>systemd has too much responsibility, and it is too bloated and too incomprehensible!

>X is bloated and incomprehensible, but it's what we need, the alternative doesn't follow the UNIX way!

I'm not arguing one way or the other, but could someone explain why X's bloat is acceptable?

Assume that Wayland will continue being developed and will in the future implement all/most basic/sane features. In other words, "it sucks because it's under development and still can't do [thing]" isn't an argument, because of course it's under development - everything starts out under development, and unless Wayland gets abandoned that will cease being a problem in the future.

The same about i3 and Openbox. XFCE btw will work after the gtk3 migration

>I'm not arguing one way or the other, but could someone explain why X's bloat is acceptable?

It's not. but:

Also a lot of the bloat is in extensions. You can compile a super svelt x server that will run on the pda or even watch hardware that was played with nearly 2 decades ago.

But in all fairness, so much of X's complexity is due to things that I don't think other windowing systems are considering.

The whole passive vs active pointer grabs to make keyboard focus work in spite of variable latency is one example of a place where a bunch of PhD's put an enormous amount of work.

Also, the ability to work across displays of bit depth from 1 to 32 bpp. (maybe even more on ?direct mapped? displays)

What X lacks in elegance it makes up for in being a battle tested system that works for bunches of apps since the 80's.

A system these days says look, hurr, durr we can draw in 32bpp color on a single platform (x86) and we are tiny compared to X. Well, duh kid, that's the point.

What about the points brought up in Again, just trying to get a better understanding. From a superficial reading of that articles, some of the issues seem like deep-seated design flaws. Sure, a system might have a lot of bells and whistles and handle the vast majority of cases with rock-solid stability, but if this comes at the expense of relatively common cases having highly unintuitive behaviour that some might consider "broken" that's still a problem.

Am I looking at this the wrong way? Or is it just a matter of opinion - whether one prefers a solid system that withstood the test of time, but has its quirks, or a well-polished one that's being designed "elegantly" from the start but hasn't been able to build up anywhere near the versatility of the old one: would that be a better interpretation?

>Am I looking at this the wrong way? Or is it just a matter of opinion - whether one prefers a solid system that withstood the test of time, but has its quirks, or a well-polished one that's being designed "elegantly" from the start but hasn't been able to build up anywhere near the versatility of the old one: would that be a better interpretation?


I think that's a good way of looking at it. BUT its like everything else, a lot of the dark corners are there due to design compromises that are not understood by the people that are coming along to rewrite it.

IMHO, it is way to soon to replace X. Why? Because computers are evolving way too fast. Intel is working on persistent RAM. YUGE. We have gpus with thousands of little cores.

Only within the last year or so (IIRC) has it been possible to share user pointers with the shader cores (Intel).

My point is fundamental building blocks of CS are being reinvented right now. Only now languages are evolving to include parallelism as a primitive (C++). Languages are still trying to figure out how to integrate the compute capability provided by GPUs. Anything being designed and built right now is being done using obsolete assumptions. Particularly graphics that touches input and display systems which is also evolving super quickly. In 20 years, even if we are still running X, it plus extensions is going to look only a little less obsolete than something designed today.