Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
KDE GUI Graphics Linux

KDE Plans To Support Wayland In 2012 413

Posted by timothy
from the good-first-name-for-a-baby-too dept.
An anonymous reader writes "During the 2011 Desktop Summit plans were brought up by a KDE developer to support KDE on the Wayland Display Server, which is dubbed the successor to X11. The KDE Wayland support is expected to come in three phases, with the first two phases expected to be completed next year during the KDE SC 4.8 and 4.9 development cycles. Farewell X?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

KDE Plans To Support Wayland In 2012

Comments Filter:
  • Stupid (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mlwmohawk (801821) on Sunday August 07, 2011 @09:49AM (#37013734)

    This is a mistake! X is one of the most flexible and useful systems today. Granted dumb users won't ever realize what they have in front of them, but the utility of X should not be under-estimated. I DO use it on a regular basis. Eliminating X, or even making it a second class citizen, is a huge loss in the philosophy that has allowed UNIX to survive for decades.

    What will happen is that X will be "supported" as an X emulation layer on top of the latest display layer. Unfortunately, apps will abandon X because it will no longer be vigorously supported. Then it will be lost.

    Here's what X can do today that we will lose: Run applications on one virtual or physical machine and display on another. This is not the same as VNC or terminal services.

    I hear all the dumbed down Linux users saying, that this isn't important, but like the people making these decisions, it is the point of view of ignorance. Computers are going in two directions..... Smaller devices and huge systems with many virtual machines. The huge systems with many virtual machines SCREAMS X for application display management. a 1:1 virtual desktop per virtual machine us unmanageable, but a window per app is. Eventually, there will only be a para-virtual manager and para-virtualized machines, each running apps. The VMs can be saved, restored, snap-shotted, backed-up, branched, etc. This will be the nature of how we run apps when we have a huge number of CPUs. X is a better fit now for the future, than any Windows/Mac inspired "improvement."

    This is another Ill that is a direct result of people coming to Linux from a Mac or Windows background. They want to bring lesser ideas because they don't understand the capabilities of what they already have.

     

    • Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Trepidity (597) <delirium-slashdot@h a c k i sh.org> on Sunday August 07, 2011 @09:54AM (#37013740)

      I'm not too sure what the actual use-cases driving it are, either. Is there anybody who's really that excited about fancy graphical window effects, except as a curiosity? The article mentions Compiz developers having trouble getting patches merged, which I hope is not the main driver--- the main thing holding back Linux on the desktop is not insufficiently fancy animations when you minimize a window.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        I'm an old fart, but as far as I'm concerned a computer is a tool to accomplish a goal not an end in itself. I use a computer to get work done, or for entertainment. In both activities I couldn't care less about the computer itself, as long as it is efficient and stays out of the way.

        Now look at the trends today. Every major window manager seems thoroughly convinced that mo' shiny is mo' better. Transparant everything, all-singing all-dancing window animations. Very clever stuff, but does it help me get my

        • Nobody's forcing updates on you, old timer.

        • by Osgeld (1900440)

          X is the underling tech that displays all those new shiny borked GUI's and your old favorites too, it sort of needs to go because it rarely gets used for what its intended and is a big bloated overcomplicated pain in the ass for normal desktop use!

          now the optimal time to do that would have been a decade or more ago when it took unholy matters of hell to get X working worth a shit on older machines, now whats the point we all have at least a quarter gig of ram and a 1+Ghz cpu and X is just a tiny tidbit

          • by RightwingNutjob (1302813) on Sunday August 07, 2011 @12:55PM (#37015012)
            X is mature code and it works. It makes sense to replace it only if you replace it with something *better*, which is different from *shinier*. Dropping pretty basic features like network transparency because it doesn't make sense on tablets, or for n00bs, or etc is bad engineering, bad philosophy, and bad karma.

            You should not condition the capabilities of a system on the capabilities of its least experienced users.
        • by Tanktalus (794810)

          Well, I agree with you. Except that transparency in my desktop helps me get my work done faster. First off, if it's opaque, it's got focus. And that is something I can say on many layers: the window with the WM's concept of "focus" (where keystrokes go) is displayed opaquely, but because it's opaque, it naturally gets my attention and focus. The time I spend guessing which window has focus is reduced. I know that, in the past, the window's title bar would show whether that window had focus or not, but w

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You have four options:

        1. Complain about people who want the "fancy animations" and end up losing X11. Let's face it, it's rare for people to complain their way into a mutually beneficial situation. This seems to be the option everyone is going for at the moment...

        2. Help X11 by fixing what people perceive to be wrong with it. Maybe then you'll also see how bloated and painful it is to work with X11... (ultimately, that's the REAL reason we're seeing a rise of Wayland). You don't have to agree, you just have

        • by siride (974284)

          What's bloated and slow about X11? Aside from crappy drivers (for some people), most of the slow issues have been fixed. Bloat is commonly levelled at X11, but it's not really substantiated.

          • by richlv (778496)

            x11 in general - seems to work just fine. remote x11, especially over a high latency link... ouch.
            it is an extremely chatty protocol and, as far as i know, no reasonable caching is built-in.

            granted, for the time it was developed (and for local use today) it was just fine. but i have to use remote x fairly often over slow connections. well, not really, i'm using nx (because plain x is totally unusable) - but that's closing source and it's session management is extremely terrible.

          • by bjourne (1034822)
            X11 is a protocol, X.Org is an implementation of it. The protocol specfication is here: http://www.x.org/releases/X11R7.5/doc/x11proto/proto.html [x.org] As you can see, the protocol is pretty bloat for something that is mostly just managing your display buffer these days. The protcol commands for drawing arcs were all the rage in the 80's but are not at all used these days. Then there are all the extensions such as SHM, Composite, xrandr, XAA and probably a dozen more. All these specifications that has to be imple
        • by Elbereth (58257)

          I wish that you had posted this from a logged in account, so that I could friend you.

          • by jedidiah (1196)

            The main problem with Wayland is that it will force a hard reset of device drivers.

            The state of Linux device drivers will be reset back to 1994. Any progress that has been made in those intervening years will be flushed straight down the toilet. Whatever advantage you gain from flushing X will be undone by poor quality of drivers and incomplete feature support.

        • Re:Stupid (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Mad Merlin (837387) on Sunday August 07, 2011 @02:53PM (#37015930) Homepage

          2. Help X11 by fixing what people perceive to be wrong with it. Maybe then you'll also see how bloated and painful it is to work with X11... (ultimately, that's the REAL reason we're seeing a rise of Wayland). You don't have to agree, you just have to realize that the people who disagree with you are about to overpower your choice. The mantra of "well, if they want it (the fancy animations), they should add it to X11 themselves or shut up" has failed you. Instead, someone has written an increasingly viable alternative which lacks features YOU want. Which leads me to ...

          This would be counterproductive. By far the most common complaint I see about X is "OMG IT'S SLOW BECAUSE IT ALWAYS RUNS OVER THE NETWORK!!!!!!!!". However, on a local display, X uses a domain socket for communication, basically the fastest method available. So, the perceived problem isn't actually a problem at all, "fixing" it would be a mistake.

          As far as I can tell, anyone who's backing Wayland has no actual concrete complaints about X, they just feel the need to rewrite everything from scratch (a common problem, unfortunately [wikipedia.org]). Furthermore, in all I've read about Wayland, it doesn't bring anything to the table except fewer features and newer (buggier) code.

          I don't know if you've noticed, but KDE and Gnome (and others) already have lots of fancy animations, and they didn't need to rewrite X to get it done.

      • It's not only about some specific effects but also about having a generally smooth and intuitive desktop experience. Plus it's nice to have the small flicker here and there eliminated which rids the traditional desktops.
        • Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)

          by dkf (304284) <donal.k.fellows@manchester.ac.uk> on Sunday August 07, 2011 @10:37AM (#37013966) Homepage

          It's not only about some specific effects but also about having a generally smooth and intuitive desktop experience. Plus it's nice to have the small flicker here and there eliminated which rids the traditional desktops.

          But you can get that with X11. Intuition is not built at the basic graphics library layer anyway, and never ever was (it resides at a higher level). Smooth running? That again is a matter of correct programming (e.g., getting the handling of buffers right) as the fact that some X11 apps have been running smoothly for decades will testify. Going to Wayland will not fix these sorts of problems.

          OTOH, there are things that it will fix. For example, it's finally just about becoming limiting that window dimensions have to fit in 16 bits. And it will also mean that some legacy nastiness can be dropped. (I so wish I'd never had to understand the mess that is visuals. Complex, confusing and long obsolete.)

      • Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ThePhilips (752041) on Sunday August 07, 2011 @10:20AM (#37013888) Homepage Journal

        I have seen video of Keith Packard's talk which was providing quite a lot of reasons why Wayland or something similar is the way to go forward. The talk was centered on X protocol and architecture and how it works for modern applications. (Executive summary: very poorly.)

        One of the main points was that most applications (both KDE and GNOME) do not use X anymore. Largest part of X is related to the 2D graphics and font rendering. Yet, most applications do not use X for that anymore and render everything by themselves, sending to X only the final image to display. X became a simple display driver with a fancy network interface. Why the layer is needed at all?

        Another memorable problem is that X is unable to support full-screen games.

        So those behind Wayland are not only bubbling windows fanatics - but also people who want to stream-line Linux' graphics stack.

        P.S. I would love to have some guarantees that X would survive and I would be able to run a GUI app remotely, but something tells me that the days when I was taking that for granted are counted.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by dbIII (701233)

          other memorable problem is that X is unable to support full-screen games.

          So somebody that has not even heard of the root window is trying to tell us all what X can or can't do and getting it wrong?
          BTW, the gnome and kde comments also show a lack of understanding - there's more to X than a widget set and ultimately the important thing is getting the images from whatever to where the user can see it.

          • other memorable problem is that X is unable to support full-screen games.

            So somebody that has not even heard of the root window is trying to tell us all what X can or can't do and getting it wrong?

            Fullscreen has never worked satisfactorily for me, personally. There would always be some weirdness which made it practically useless.

            [...] and ultimately the important thing is getting the images from whatever to where the user can see it.

            ... and X11 is an absurdly complex way of doing that. Wayland does exactly

          • Re:Stupid (Score:5, Informative)

            by ThePhilips (752041) on Sunday August 07, 2011 @11:13AM (#37014210) Homepage Journal

            So somebody that has not even heard of the root window is trying to tell us all what X can or can't do and getting it wrong?

            I'm pretty sure Keith Packard, as a lead of X.org, has heard of the root window.

            Here is the video I was referring to: X and the future of Linux Graphics. [blip.tv]

        • by laffer1 (701823)

          In that case, I say let the linux zealots do wayland but give us X. They are clearly in not-invented-here syndrome. I'm tired of it. More and more free desktop projects are under the GPL. If they want to do wayland, just go in a corner and do it. Don't screw everyone else in the process. By everyone, I mean all non Linux users. (yes even windows users have x-windows servers available)

          There is a clear need for non linux people to take leadership in Xorg as well as starting a graphical desktop environme

        • Re:Stupid (Score:4, Insightful)

          by npsimons (32752) * on Sunday August 07, 2011 @01:50PM (#37015464) Homepage Journal

          Yet, most applications do not use X for that anymore and render everything by themselves, sending to X only the final image to display. X became a simple display driver with a fancy network interface. Why the layer is needed at all?

          Okay, if this is the case, why is Wayland ignoring network transparency? Fine, the X rendering layer isn't used anymore and should go away; maybe the entirety of X should go away; why does it immediately follow that network transparency should go away? Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

          Another memorable problem is that X is unable to support full-screen games.

          That's funny, I could have sworn I used to run all sorts of games full screen, across multiple monitors no less, since at least 2001. And yes, this was Linux with X11, with games that made heavy use of OpenGL (NWN, Unreal, etc).

          So those behind Wayland are not only bubbling windows fanatics - but also people who want to stream-line Linux' graphics stack.

          Fine, but I ask again - why does network transparency have to go? I might be more convinced that those behind Wayland weren't bubbling Windows fanatics if their solution to the remote GUI apps problem wasn't the same as Windows and MacOSX. No, remote desktops in their own window *isn't* good enough. If I really wanted that, I can *choose* it, but I'm not *forced* to run remote GUI apps that way.

          I would love to have some guarantees that X would survive and I would be able to run a GUI app remotely, but something tells me that the days when I was taking that for granted are counted.

          And this exact same feeling is why others are wailing so loudly against Wayland.

      • by DrXym (126579)
        It's not just about fancy effects. If you can hold the contents of each window as a surface and get the GPU to render it, the CPU is freed up to be doing other things. It makes the entire experience fast as well as allowing useful things like thumbnails, scaled windows, transparency to happen cheaply. It may be it makes the experience more flashy which I don't see as a bad thing assuming its done with some restraint. Dumping X will make things even faster because there won't be an obstinately 2D, largely ob
    • Re:Stupid (Score:4, Interesting)

      by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Sunday August 07, 2011 @09:55AM (#37013744) Homepage Journal

      Here's what X can do today that we will lose: Run applications on one virtual or physical machine and display on another. This is not the same as VNC or terminal services.

      Lately I have it not work for me pretty often. Especially if there's any OpenGL. I can have two machines with GLX on them and yet my application crashes when I try to display it on the remote one... practically ANYTHING using OpenGL asplodes. Any more, that's the only thing I want to display remotely, because any old janky computer has enough power to run apps locally. It's not like when I was having to run Netscape on Linux displayed back to my SLC because it didn't have the power to run it satisfactorily.

      • by vlm (69642)

        Any more, that's the only thing I want to display remotely, because any old janky computer has enough power to run apps locally.

        Sometimes, power doesn't matter. I can't run mythtv-setup locally. Unfortunately, its the only way I know of to configure a mythtv-backend, and its a X11 GUI. My mythtv-backend doesn't even have a graphics card, certainly not the mandatory $500 super 3-d type you'd need, and I'd not want to remove a tuner card to plug in a fancy 3-d card, just for occasional channel lineup changes...

        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          But that's a retarded failing of MythTV that can be worked around with X11 as a band-aid... I mean, that's clearly not the Unix Way (tm) :)

          Do you really need a fancy graphics card just to run MythTV?

          • by vlm (69642)

            But that's a retarded failing of MythTV that can be worked around with X11 as a band-aid...

            And after X11 is gotten rid of, and there is no bandaid... The only benefit the GUI provides over a config file is its semi-adaptive. From memory, you set up the capture card, THEN it shows up as an option in the thingy that links cap card hardware to channel lineups or whatever. The only benefit the GUI provides over a text CLI is during channel icon selection. The only benefit the GUI provides over a web based interface, is you don't need to set up / maintain / security patch a web server and some oper

            • by drinkypoo (153816)

              No, Wayland makes all that stuff possible, but there is absolutely nothing preventing the implementation of a frame buffer interface drawn by the CPU. And by the same token, nothing preventing exporting Wayland to X (or VNC, or...) through a similar mechanism.

      • by dbIII (701233)
        That's pretty crappy apps then - I was running OpenGL stuff from an SGI machine on a linux pentium75 machine with a fairly crappy video card in 2000. I haven't noticed much in the way of trouble since then - what application are you running that is crashing all of the time?
        As for never having to run remote apps - bullshit. Do you think those 48 CPU boxes are running on peoples desks?
    • by Pieroxy (222434)

      So... Now that we know what X has that Wayland lacks, we are halfay there. What does Wayland has that X lacks? I personally don't know.

      When we'll know that, we'll be able to express an informed opinion.

      Anyone care to jump in to enlighten us?

    • Re:Stupid (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Theovon (109752) on Sunday August 07, 2011 @10:13AM (#37013848)

      It's a myth that Wayland lacks network transparency. It currently doesn't DEFINE it, but it doesn't LACK it. That may sound like a semantic game, but it's the same as saying that X11 lacks policy, which is imposed by the window manager, a separate program. Wayland provides drawing surfaces to applications and then composites them onto the screen. There are many different ways in which the drawing surfaces can get moved from the client to the server for display. Locally, they're the same memory space. With remote applications, you can either move pixels, or you can have the rendering API send commands over the network.

      • by mlwmohawk (801821)

        It's a myth that Wayland lacks network transparency. It currently doesn't DEFINE it, but it doesn't LACK it.

        OMG, that is the worst twist of logic that I have ever seen. That's like saying my Jeep doesn't lack flight, it just doesn't define or come with wings. NOT HAVING IT AS A DEMONSTRABLE DESIGN GOAL MEANS THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE IT. In other words, Wayland lacks network transparency.

        • by siride (974284)

          No, the parent is right. All wayland cares about is that it gets pixmaps for window contents. It doesn't matter where they come from. It's underspecified, and therefore open to be implemented in a wide variety of ways. The same is not true for your jeep.

      • by sgt scrub (869860)

        Wayland uses X for "network transparency".

        • by celle (906675)

          "Wayland uses X for "network transparency"."

          And since X will no longer be maintained so much for that.
          Need examples of lack of maintenance: User level display drivers, xfree86, etc.
          Everyone of value will jump and X will die a slow death of bitrot.

    • by grumbel (592662)

      This is a mistake! X is one of the most flexible and useful systems today.

      It's also decades old and full of cruft, does no longer properly model how our hardware works and only held together by an endless number of extensions.

      Run applications on one virtual or physical machine and display on another.

      Yeah and as soon as you want something more complicated, such as move an application from one display to another while its already running you run into issues. Something simple as changing color depth at runtime, something that Windows could do since at least Win98, if not already Win95, is still impossible in X11. The reason why I can't use the scroll wheel

    • by sgt scrub (869860)

      As someone who constantly uses Xnest and Xming on a daily bases I say, you tell them mlwmohawk! There is NO other GUI environment that allows applications from several different machines in different locations to run seamlessly on the desktop. I currently have two sessions of Code::Blocks up. One is from my server development machine. The other is on the client development machine. I also have an application running on a third machine that controls VMs (4 attackers and 4 victims) set up to send traffic

    • by MrKaos (858439)

      This is a mistake! X is one of the most flexible and useful systems today.

      This is another Ill that is a direct result of people coming to Linux from a Mac or Windows background. They want to bring lesser ideas because they don't understand the capabilities of what they already have.

      You are right and I agree with you be, shit son, if ever there was a useful piece of software that needed a massive overhaul/refactor it is X11. Don't get me wrong I love what I can do with X11 but it is a world unto itself in terms of understanding it. Configuring X11 is so fucking frustrating and it was one of the things I would dread when re-installing a Linux box and one of the big reasons I switched to Ubuntu, there are some things I just couldn't be bothered doing and I just want it to work and not ha

      • by jedidiah (1196)

        ...and all of this ranting argues for an overhaul of xorg rather than dumping it.

        Although why you would need to bother with X config files in this day and age is a bit of a mystery.

    • I am one of the "dumb" users who don't need network transparency for their display servers, but if I remember right X Server does run as a client to Wayland. In this sense I would not call it an emulation layer, but rather an abstraction layer.

      The use case you mention is very real and ubiquitous in everyday situations. The computers in my university labs just cannot work without X. I am pretty sure it will not die out.

    • by smash (1351)

      If you need X11 run X11. If you want to do advanced 3d desktop effects, don't. However, remote display has moved on since X11 was designed.

      X11 can do remote display of apps running on a server, but it carries with it 20 years+ of baggage for functionality that perhaps 1-2% of users will ever use.

      Besides, there are better ways of supporting X11. Personally i would suggest that the way forward is to move to wayland and then implement an X11 layer on top. Like the Mac UI has. I can run remote X11 stu

  • The "problem" with replacing X is that it's good enough for most uses.

    • by jedidiah (1196)

      This is the real problem.

      The perceived inefficiencies of X are less relevant on gigahertz machines where you've got much more idle CPU horsepower laying around than idle GPU power. Meanwhile, the most interesting GPU features (like vdpau/vaapi) will likely be tossed out in the bargain. Those are things not easily replicated with idle CPU cycles when compared to the main focus of Wayland.

      • by Osgeld (1900440)

        I agree, the "time to kill X" was in the mid 1990's when a Pentium could run OS/2 or Windows 95 with no problems but just loading an X desktop would suck all your ram and take an hour

  • by teaserX (252970) on Sunday August 07, 2011 @09:56AM (#37013754) Homepage Journal
    Serious question. TFA mentions that Wayland has advantages on mobile devices but does that make "Farewell X" a foregone conclusion? Is it really necessary to run the same display server on your phone and your desktop?
    • by Chemisor (97276) on Sunday August 07, 2011 @10:29AM (#37013922)

      The main problem with X11 is the complete lack of frame boundaries. Applications just send a stream of drawing commands with no indication of where one frame stops and the next one begins. Consequently the server has to keep drawing stuff as it comes in, resulting in flicker. Flicker is the first thing a novice X11 programmer complains about and online forums have been filled with pleas for help with this problem for decades. The traditional solution was to render to an offscreen image and send it to the server. This requires a lot of bandwidth, so the next step is to use MIT-SHM extension to avoid this traffic. Then came XComposite extension which automatically handles double buffering. XComposite has the luxury of being able to sync to vretrace, but not knowing where the frame boundaries are it can't do it lest it cut the instruction stream in the wrong place and draw half-a-screen. In the meantime, after two decades of deliberation, the XSync extension still does not implement the ability to detect vretrace.

      Wayland solves the above by moving rendering into the client, as in the render-to-image solution above, and then copying the image to the server. This can be done though shared memory as well. The rendered image on the client represents the complete frame.

    • by jmknsd (1184359)

      There is a pretty good description here: http://wayland.freedesktop.org/architecture.html [freedesktop.org]

      Pretty much all of the modern advances in Linux Graphics have been to push the performance sensitive parts of X to the kernel and the client. In current 3D apps, X does little more than the Wayland compositor does, but adds a cumbersome middle man.

  • by Sir_Kurt (92864) on Sunday August 07, 2011 @10:13AM (#37013842)

    In our office, we use the ability to run programs remotely on a regular basis. It is particularly useful for running programs that have dependencies that are no longer included in modern linux distributions.

    As an example, I am a big fan of Word Perfect. I have used it to write specifications in our architectural office since maybe 1986. As some of you may recall, Word Perfect was available as a native Linux application -not a port or WINE abortion- I love this program, and would reinstall it at each upgrade, moving the required libraries from the old 2.0 kernel as needed.

    Starting about Fedora Core 3, It just couldn't be installed in a way that was useful.

    I solved this by installing RH9 on an old box, installed the libraries from Kernel 2.0 installed WP and have been happily running WP on this box with the display appearing on whatever computer I happen to be using ever since.

    This is just one example, and maybe seems like a cranky one, but we have many other examples, such as pushing intensive computational tasks off to another computer while having the display on the desktop.

    We will miss X greatly. Why this push lately to screw up the Linux desktop, anyway?

    Kurt

    • by sgt scrub (869860)

      Why this push lately to screw up the Linux desktop, anyway?

      Rectangles with rounded edges is my short answer. The PIM interface is the perfect interface for stupid people. Ever since the iPhone came out with its 3d looking buttons (rectangles with rounded edges) that has been the defacto preferred "standard" to chase. The tech industry, being a follow the leader industry, is chasing that preferred look and feel. Really hard stuff like network accessible interfaces are being pushed away because they are n

      • by Microlith (54737)

        I've noticed a lot of comments like yours, crying about how Linux is being "dumbed down" for the sake of "stupid people."

        I am at a loss as to where this contempt for other users, who might want decent graphics for their desktop and mobile systems, comes from. Can you tell me? Why such resistance to change is channeled into hatred for others, instead of into valid arguments that might result in seeing your concerns addressed?

        • by STDOUBT (913577)
          The contempt comes from the understanding that these users don't understand Linux. It comes from knowing what a treasure we have in Linux, and seeing all the "dumb" adopters wishing it were more like "that other OS". It's maddening. I can't wait until HaikuOS kicks in. We can direct them all there and be done with it. Also, "decent graphics" is subjective in the extreme. I guess it's about priorities. Some people can't tolerate a UI that's not super pretty. Some people think pretty is more important than L
        • by jedidiah (1196)

          If you can't figure it out then perhaps you're just one of the stupid ones.

          The whole point of a general purpose computing device is that it is infinitely flexible. With that, comes a bit of complexity as overhead.

          Furthermore, attempting to castrate user interfaces interferes with the whole "infinitely flexible" thing that gives computing devices their biggest value.

          "Pandering to idiots" is the most common excuse given for castrating computing systems today and tend to be given by those driving the change ra

    • by Microlith (54737)

      Then do the IT thing and manage your old server with your old applications. Stop insisting that the rest of the Linux world be held back so as to service your concerns. It's not like they're going to outright eliminate your ability to use Xorg, or ban Xservers running on Wayland (which already exist, iirc.)

      • by jedidiah (1196)

        Linux is not being held back by avoiding nonsense like Wayland.

        That is just mindless "new must be good" simpleton sort of reasoning.

    • by DrXym (126579)

      We will miss X greatly. Why this push lately to screw up the Linux desktop, anyway?

      Run X over Wayland as a client. In exactly the same way that X is supported Windows or OS X.

  • by dfaure (115987) on Sunday August 07, 2011 @10:25AM (#37013910) Homepage

    Typical slashdot: the article distorts the truth in order to get reactions.

    It was pretty clear during that presentation that the goal was to make it possible to still run X applications -- using a rootless X server -- and that this would also allow X-over-the-network use cases.
    X11 is not going away, the idea is to use Wayland -and- X.

    • by gman003 (1693318)

      So Wayland is more like X12, then.

    • by melikamp (631205)
      I use X over ssh daily for thunderbird, but I'll be first to point out that it is overrated. We have today a vastly superior protocol for GUI over the net: HTTPS. And in my mind, it is up to application developers to give us remote access, the way transmission [transmissionbt.com] does it. I am glad that X and Wayland cooperate so smoothly, but I am also glad that we are finally leaving X behind.
    • by caseih (160668)

      Yes but as newer, shinier applications such as KDE apps bypass X and use Wayland directly for speed, does that mean we'll see the end of network-transparent apps? I hope not (and the other posts indicate that network transparency is being worked on).

      What you are describing, however is exactly how OS X supports X11. Using a rootless X server that relegates X11 apps to very much second-class status. This is okay if the new wayland API and system offers everything that X11 did as far as network transparency

  • I hope that support to X will stay for much longer.

    It'd be nice not to repeat the notorious story with KDE v.4.

    And, yes, all this bashing with "the old v4.0" is here because our scares done by KDE board still bleed.

  • Wayland is not the successor of X11 until Patrick Volkerding says it is.
  • If you don't believe me, check out the damn X11 site about the Wayland Project. It's purpose is to clean up the damn X11 code base to something easier to maintain and improve, which is why everyone is beginning to work with it. Find what needs improvement and get it's performance/stability up/over what the latest version of x11 offers.

Prototype designs always work. -- Don Vonada

Working...