GNOME Aiming For Full Wayland Support by Spring 2014 300
An anonymous reader writes "Canonical's plan to develop the Mir Display Server for Ubuntu rather than going with their original plans to adopt Wayland has been met with criticism from KDE (and other) developers... The GNOME response to Ubuntu's Mir is that they will now be rushing support for the GNOME desktop on Wayland. Over the next two release cycles they plan to iron out the Wayland support for the GNOME Shell, the GTK+ toolkit, and all GNOME packages so that by this time next year you can be running GNOME entirely on Wayland while still having X11 fall-back support."
It's ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, by creating MIR Ubuntu contributed to Wayland by giving the Gnome devs a big kick in the butt?
Well played, Canonical, well played! :)
And for the record, as long as both MIR and Wayland are more or less interoperable I don't care what's behind the hood. Both are open source and will be solid by the time they come out, so may the best implementation win. A little competition every now and then is just healthy.
Re:It's ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)
For the record, as long as whatever display system we settle on provides network transparency for all applications, I don't care what's behind the hood.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's ironic... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, yes X11 does work very well for many of us. I agree with the GP's sentiment. Being able to remote individual applications (a rendering mode without 3d-acceleration) is definitely a must if you want to replace X11. There are many of us who use Linux professionally that use X11-over-ssh to run applications every single day. I don't care so much about the X protocol as I do being able to remote the apps. Remoting an entire desktop isn't that useful to me.
I still can't remote individual apps on Windows without resorting to hacks with rdp, or buying into Citrix. That seems so strange in a networked world where people remote apps all the time in their browsers, in a manner of speaking.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you can do some opengl too - is kinda fun, although utility hasn't been terribly high for me due to limited subset.
But, for example, ssh -YC, launch glxgears.
Hedgewars worked for me too.
Re:It's ironic... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It's ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)
And relying on a bloated 3d stack just to draw a damn window isn't a bottleneck?
Face it, the only people that want to replace X which works JUST FINE are people who want to play with their goddamn wobbly windows. We get enough of that garbage with compositing, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks to modern hardware, "thinking in 2D" is a bottleneck. It's such a bottleneck that the modern video card is faster doing 2D operations in 3D mode than trying to do it in 2D only. Window management is an example - the traditional 2D method
Re:It's ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks to modern hardware, "thinking in 2D" is a bottleneck.
Actually, no it's not any more.
Modern graphics hardware is just a large bunch of stream processors coupled to some hardware perspective correct texture sampling units.
These days forcing everything in 3D is no particular advantage. Graphics card can whale on 2D problems just as efficiently as 3D ones. It's just a question of writing some different shader programs.
But you already knew that...
So I really don't get your point.
You seem to be saying that there is something fundemantal about X which prevents one from doing everything on the graphics card. There isn't. And there's no need to mess with fiddly window overlap stuff either. The BackingStore flag has been present since 1988, since even then the designers realised that it was worth keeping windows on the graphics card on advanced machines to avoid the irritating fiddling with overlaps and stuff.
Seriously, it's been there for 25 years. X11 is actually designed to benefit from these kinds of things.
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind that after transformation and perspective divide, the other 90% of the pipeline is just 2D anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And relying on a bloated 3d stack just to draw a damn window isn't a bottleneck?
No it isn't. Modern PCs with a modern GPU will put the windows contents into a texture. Drawing a window is just a matter of telling the GPU to draw a quad with a texture. Drawing them in 3d is just means passing a model-view-projection matrix into the shader at the same time which is something that would happen anyway. 3d is literally for free. And while 3d might be a gimmick, the matrix could be used to render thumbnails, or a gnome shell view of the desktop or whatever.
The fact is that even with X11, m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And relying on a bloated 3d stack just to draw a damn window isn't a bottleneck?
You're referring to OpenGL? I do not think what you know whereof you speak. OpenGL is actually quite tight. Yes, it has some cruft - primitive feedback is quaint and nearly completely useless for example - but such warts are small next to its extremely well designed and orthogonal fast path. Especially now with the clean partition into core and legacy profiles (with the latter well supported in all known OpenGL platforms). The only people who complain about OpenGL not being tight are game weanies who think
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Yes!
X11 is a bottle neck.
No.
it's full of redundant baggage which nobody uses
Oh you mean the old bitmapped drawing code. That is a tiny fraction of the code base and it doesn't clog anything up. Old, maintained debugged stable code in a little used code path is entirely harmless. It's neither a cause of slowdowns nor a significant security risk.
all those processes introduce latency.
You're making it sound like the old drawing code has something to do with it.
As for latency, technically yes, but like so m
Re: (Score:2)
No. X11 is a bottle neck. It thinks in 2D, it's full of redundant baggage which nobody uses and all those processes introduce latency. Even X11 developers recognize that it's an impediment in a modern desktop which is why some prominent ones have endorsed work on Wayland.
Might as well augment your random blather with a bit of actual knowledge. [linuxfinances.info]
Re: (Score:2)
I want all the features provided by X11. It doesn't have to be X. Just don't take any features away.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I read then you're gonna be out of luck - except that both Wayland and Mir will use rootless x-servers for things that need x11. Would that work for you? I don't know.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Easy to say when you're not one of the people whose job it is to implement modern features on an aging display architecture.
Network transparency is one of X11's "more awesome things"? Then why is X11 network performance trounc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So security wasn't important to you. Apparently it's still not. Good to know.
Re:Flicker-free rendering is not *possible* with X (Score:5, Informative)
So: Please tell us what "awesome" things X11 does which cannot be done with Wayland or go fuck yourself.
Open a remote editor on a machine the other side of the world? Have it integrated with my wm?
Copy and paste between windows on different machines without the app having to provide the copy/paste functionality?
Being able to set my preferences once, and not having to reconfigure 40 different desktops to my liking?
Get the correct DPI and fonts for the display I'm on, not the one of the remote machine?
Being able to run VMs that look and function the same as when run natively?
Re: (Score:3)
Get the correct DPI and fonts for the display I'm on, not the one of the remote machine?
In fairness to Wayland, that doesn't work well because the nitwits at GNOME didn't understand WHY the preferences sit on the server, not the filesystem and reimplemented it badly.
As usual.
Re:Flicker-free rendering is not *possible* with X (Score:5, Insightful)
Get the correct DPI and fonts for the display I'm on, not the one of the remote machine?
Forget it. Anything vaguely modern renders client-side and gets it wrong.
X applications die with the network connection -- they cannot survive when the machine running the X server changes IP or hibernates. They are tied to one X server, so you cannot move them from your laptop to your tablet.
It has been at least 10 years since I used X forwarding for anything except the rare GUI installer or similar short-running application. VNC is much more useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Your subject line is complete and utter bullshit.
No, I just want network transparency (Score:3)
I don't care if it is X11. But display across the network is critical to my needs. Everyone that is trying to replace X, for whatever motiviation, needs to stop being in denial about this issue. Display across the network that is complete transparent to the application and works for all applications is critical for some computing environments.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the use case? When I want remote display, I want something which does not kill all my applications when the network connection drops. That is just not useful behaviour.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it REMOTELY possible that you arent the target audience of these rewrites, and that X11 will continue to exist after Mir / Wayland come out?
Re:It's ironic... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It's ironic... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re-introduce lbx. It worked fine before, until the new generation of devs didn't want to support it because they didn't use it and (quoting from memory) "bandwidth will catch up and won't be a problem".
But even then, X without lbx or nix (which is just compression, which is better done outside) is far preferable to streaming the video output, especially for those of us who work on high latency lines (like intercontinental connections).
VNC is hardly usable outside a LAN segment.
ssh -X remotemachine "nedit filename" is a heck of a lot easer than to set up and wait for a VNC connection, and watch your typing being severely delayed as the video streams.
Re:It's ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what I hear when I listen to X11 zealots:
I DEMAND THE RIGHT TO USE MY 1988 MOTIF APPLICATION OVER A 28K modem connection AND FUCK ALL OF YOU WHO WANT A MODERN DESKTOP WITH A CODE BASE THAT CAN BE MAINTAINED AND IMPROVED.
Re: (Score:2)
The irony of this is, Motif applications (not to speak of anything more graphically intensive) were awful crap to work with over a slow/high-latency network connection.
The only legitimate modern use case I can imagine for using X11 over the network is running server administration software. Even this is suspect: WTF do you use that can't be controlled with command line tools, editing text files, or a web interface? The latter is far more realistic to find for modern software than graphical admin tools using
Re: (Score:2)
It's not suspect at all while the fucking Oracle installer is GUI only.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what I hear when I read your post:
Someone who is not clear on the concept of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And someone whose capslock key is stuck.
Re:It's ironic... (Score:4, Interesting)
Something that's always been bugging me... why is RDP so much better (no, not flamebait, RDP has been buttery smooth even over ATT 1.5 Mbps "broadband")? And been that way for years, better than the lightweight VNCs, remote Xs, and the latest X2gos.
Is there a fundamental difference in how RDP does it vs X?
BTW, I'm talking the RDP clients that come with Windows, not the $$ Citrix ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly it's because it's built into the Window Manager (GDI), so you can streamline the data that needs to be sent. Now-a-days, X is nothing more than a (remote) screen buffer. Clients send full pixmaps instead of drawing commands. RDP can paint your typical window by sending the commands that were invoked by the app, instead of a full bitmap of the window. Obviously this doesn't work for everything. Try playing a DirectX game over RDP.
Re:It's ironic... (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, There are fundamental differences. RDP simply works with input events and draw regions. The draw regions use pretty much any compression routines under the sun and supports the windowed regions, so moving windows around inside the container is basically free network IO, whereas VNC requires redraws over all delta regions. I'm not sure if Window border rendering is client side of not, but obviously the inner contents need to be redrawn with graphics sent back.
The real killer against X over networks is in latency, since most of X is performed with operations instead of rasters. Instead of sending possibly hundreds of commands, RDP can send a single raster to represent the same thing. The possible overhead in sending / acking / processing the operations quite often causes a large amount of time. This isn't helped by the fact that traditionally X developers didn't spend much time optimizing network performance, so you'll see a large number of libraries / apps that perform highly serial operations maximizing operation processing latency (since it needs a full round trip just to continue to the next instruction).
On a side note, there's the NX protocol which is a much more highly optimized remoteing solution for X derived services, but its proprietary, so it makes it unlikely for use in wide adoption. NX works quite closely to that of RDP/Citrix so that's why performance should be comparable.
Re: (Score:2)
RDP is fast even on a Linux box, so are you implying that the RDP client(s) in Linux know windows painting commands sent by Windows apps/desktops? If so, then why isn't there a Linux remoting solution that uses the same commands?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
X for server environments? What a waste. If you can't do it on the command-line, it's not worth doing. Why? Because you want to be able to script it. X for dealing with remote servers is a claim made by idiots who read the "Become a Unix Admin in 24 Hours" book.
Re: (Score:3)
I ran X11 over a 28.8k modem using SLIP/PPP, and it worked just fine. Stop using your fucking bloated window manager with 3800 gadgets running simultaneously and it would probably work fine over a "slow" network.
Wrong. The problem are not the 3800 gadgets. After all, when you run a program through ssh+x11, is just the application. The problem is that normally the application, if is something meaningful, requires to interoperate with other tools, and normally such tools, frameworks or services don't comunicate properly through ssh+x11.
I've tried to achive such allegedly cool network transparency on my local network several times, and has always been useless because real world applications use things like D-BUS.
Re: (Score:2)
Three decades of Windows use proves you 100% wrong. On the other-hand, no enterprise actually uses Ubuntu, so it doesn't matter what they run.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
For the record, you're insisting that you bring forward obsolete mechanisms that 99.99% of end users will never use. Nobody outside a handful of sysadmins uses X network transparency, and only then I suspect to stroke their own egos.
Cluestick:
However inelegant or inefficient framebuffer-forwarding schemes like RDP and VNC may seem, their flexibility and ease of use (and not to mention cross-platform compatibility) makes them the defacto standards that they are.
Re: (Score:3)
For the record, you're insisting that you bring forward obsolete mechanisms that 99.99% of end users will never use. Nobody outside a handful of sysadmins uses X network transparency, and only then I suspect to stroke their own egos.
You could say the same about Linux itself. Figure out why this statement is wrong when applied to Linux, and you'll understand why it's wrong when applied to network transparency.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you think Citrix did so well, and the whole application virtualisation stack? RDP and VNC are ok for some things, but they simply lack the power, elegance and utility of network transparency.
Re: (Score:3)
You do know that RDP IS Citrix, right? And that TS can do application-level forwarding, if you really need that?
Re: (Score:2)
I hope that one day you will be all grown up and realize that you are also using advanced tools to do things and that you are the older guy that all the other young ones come to for advice, watching wide eyed while you work on five things at the same time in different countries...
To guys like me, this is normal. This is what I do. It is much more efficient to use X forwarding than to drive 300 miles or fly half way around the world.
I hope that one day, you would understand and use these tools yourself
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who isn't using a command-line over an SSH connection to remotely-administer a Unix machine is a complete and total idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
No, RDP has become the defacto standard under Windows simply because it's really the only way to do it.
Given that I would imagine Linux desktops are disporportionately used by developers and sysadmins rather than end users (Linux isn't used so much as a desktop for normal users), there's quite a lot of people who do use X forwarding. It *is* easy and has been for a long time, a matter of three additional keypresses when you SSH to the machine you need to work on.
Unlike things like RDP, with the windows bein
Re: (Score:2)
A good video card is connected to your CPU via a 32GB/s bus. Either you have a very good network, are wasting your graphics card, or you aren't going to get anything close to network transparency.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course your videocard is then connected to your monitor by an uncompressed 3.4Gb connection.
Re: (Score:2)
That's basically irrelevant and only limits the number of pixels that can be attached and refreshed at a decent rate. In other words, it only limits monitor resolution and refresh rate.
Re: (Score:2)
For low demand applications, sure you can. No one expects that X forwarded half life would be really usable. However if I need to open up some stupid GUI only management application forwarded from a linux system that can actually talk to the manged device, it can behave so close as to be quite serviceable.
Having my local system do the compositing, locally execute GPU intensive programs, *and* accomodate seamless operation of remote applications never developed to directly provide remote access capability
Re:It's ironic... (Score:4, Insightful)
True, though server side decorations are a must, too.
Re:It's ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah that's so boring! What I want is my Linux desktop to act like MS Windows where I cannot move applications if the app is frozen, because the decorations are all client-side. And while we're at it let's emulate the feature of Windows where you can't move a parent window around when a modal dialog box is being displayed!
Yeah, then we'll finally have the year of the Linux Desktop!
Re: (Score:2)
How did you know that's exactly what I want?
Also, another feature that people seem to be missing, if the WM controls the motion, your WM can enforce policies, like snap to edge, snap to window etc universally across all programs.
Sugh a regression :(
Re: (Score:3)
Can't move a frozen application? Are you one of the poor losers stuck on XP?
Re: (Score:2)
the network transparency in X11 is a bit rubbish. It uses a huge number of round trips and so is painfully slow over a slow network. still I use it at least weekly because it is really easy. I am sat at my laptop, ssh'ed into a big machine (lots of CPUs and RAM) which runs simulations. If I want to look at a plot i can just do 'evince foo.pdf' and its on my screen (or pylab.show() or whatever). It requires no setup beyond passing -X when you start ssh (or adding forwarding to the config file).
(I also used t
Re:It's ironic... (Score:5, Informative)
Because if you have network transparency in the display system then all your applications get network transparency for free. They just talk to the display system like they always do and the display system throws them up anywhere you're connected to, as you like.
Re:It's ironic... (Score:5, Informative)
Because if you have network transparency in the display system then all your applications get network transparency for free. They just talk to the display system like they always do and the display system throws them up anywhere you're connected to, as you like.
Except if you have very little bandwidth it is absolutely horrible and you'd do far better with a web interface and if you have lots of bandwidth you can use VNC. The pipe between your CPU/RAM and GPU is one of the fattest pipes in a computer able to push many GB/s and when you replace that with tin cans and a string you need to do something, it's like arguing that if I replace your graphics card so the game renders at 1 FPS that it's now supported for free. I'd never, ever design a system that'd depend on X11 for remote access, would you?
Re:It's ironic... (Score:5, Informative)
It's not a niche feature. Just because you don't need it, it doesn't mean that millions of others don't.
Even on my home network I use X11 between machines every single day. It's the simplest solution to an awful lot of problems when you're using more than one machine and it generally works much better for interactive use than remote desktop or VNC on a local network.
Re:It's ironic... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is one of the things that really gets my goat about Wayland. People effectively kleep telling me that I don't do things that I do on a regular basis.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It's ironic... (Score:4, Interesting)
You could be doing those things over wayland.
No you can't. This is one of the #1 pieces of FUD about Wayland.
I can run X11 over Windows or OS X. I assume exactly the same will be possible over Wayland.
So, how do I get an OSX app up on my Linux box over here using X11?
Hint: I can't.
If Wayland replaces X on the Linux desktop, then functionality is lost.
there is no reason the surface can't be coming from over the network from somewhere else.
We have VNC already to show us how much that sucks.
Re:It's ironic... (Score:4, Insightful)
No you can't. This is one of the #1 pieces of FUD about Wayland.
It's not FUD, X11 can run over the top of Windows and OS X. For people whining about needing to run remote apps they can use X11 just as they do now. Or VNC. Or NX. Or whatever transport Wayland provides.
So, how do I get an OSX app up on my Linux box over here using X11?
You fail to comprehend. Though I'm sure there are remote desktop apps for OS X that would serve your purpose, VNC for example. And for Windows.
We have VNC already to show us how much that sucks.
Then don't use it FFS, use X11. Over Wayland. It's not rocket science to understand.
Re:It's ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then don't use it FFS, use X11. Over Wayland. It's not rocket science to understand.
What do we do about native Wayland apps?
If it's not rocket science, explain that to me. The whole point of Wayland is to deprecate X11. If Wayland is successful, it will supplant X11 and people will not write X11 apps anymore.
So explain to me how running X11 over Wayland is a solution to the lack of network transparency in Wayland. If it's easy to understand, it must be easy to explain. So go ahead, explain it. Please! I really don't want to have to worry about this or bitch about this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or they are normal people who only have one system, only connect remotely to email and web servers, and don't give a shit about you, your systems or your stupid X applications.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's ironic... (Score:5, Funny)
I know I and most people do in my field -- computational physics. I want to be able to type "graph the file XYZ" and have it work the same whether I'm on my local machine or ssh'd somewhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do so many people pay for Citrix, and VDI?
Re:It's ironic... (Score:5, Informative)
RDP, VNC, and Teamviewer all present whole desktops. This is infuriating. I want the application windows to be seamlessly navigable among my local applications.
That's not to say X is perfect either. X is highly latency sensitive, particularly for things like Java GUI applications. If network flakes out, the X client dies rather than 'detaching' for someone to later reconnect. X has no concept of audio streams.
I don't necessarily want X, but I want something that recognizes the core value of application level remote display (including things like the NETWM stuff to let 'tray' icons live in the right place.) and enhance it through better audio integration, detachable operation, and better network usage (e.g. Xlib primitives are rarely used anymore, having primitives more relevant to modern usage like RDP has would be a large improvement)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The RDP "whole desktop" is entirely an artificial limitation. It actually works great on the application level, after you've shell out the bucks. So, yes, it is infuriating that MS crippled their own product.
Re: (Score:3)
Just because you use it doesn't mean it isn't a niche feature.
Or it might be just the other way around :
"Just because you don't use it, it doesn't mean it is a niche feature."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stop saying VNC is flawless, it isn't. RDP is closer, SPICE is closer, VNC is so far away from being flawless it's crazy. X without tricks is also far from flawless, but the remote application forwarding model isn't imitated by any of the alternatives either.
Re:It's ironic... (Score:4, Insightful)
Then get the Wayland developers to guarantee that Wayland apps will be network transparent. Then we will shut up and you won't have to listen to us anymore. Until then, expect us to bitch every time Wayland is mentioned.
You have three options:
-provide network transparency
-give up and go home
-put up with constant bitching
Your choice.
Re:It's ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I should quote the Wayland FAQ [freedesktop.org] here:
"Is Wayland network transparent / does it support remote rendering?
No, that is outside the scope of Wayland."
Really, everybody should read that and understand it, and also its consequences. Frankly, to me, the idea, that by switching to Wayland will somehow mean that you lose network transparency it just as absurd that by switching to X you lose OpenGL support (which is absolutely not a part of the X protocol - X11 came out in 1987, OpenGL in 1992). So while Wayland itself will not support network transparency, the full stack surely will.
Re:It's ironic... (Score:4, Insightful)
Frankly, to me, the idea, that by switching to Wayland will somehow mean that you lose network transparency it just as absurd that by switching to X you lose OpenGL support
If you run an X program, you are guaranteed that network transparency is available. If you run an X program, you are not guaranteed that OpenGL is available. Saying that Wayland *can* support network transparency is insufficient. I should be able to *rely* on network transparency being available to arbitrary apps.
If I find someday that a Wayland app that I need is not network transparent, what should I do? That's never even been a cromulent question with regards to X.
So while Wayland itself will not support network transparency, the full stack surely will.
I hope you're right. But I'm not about to shut up about it until the "full stack" exists, has all the features X11 had, and performs better.
Re: (Score:2)
Theres a fourth option, you could get over it and just install X11.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You say that you install an X server on your Windows machines, but something think that Wayland will be a problem? Are you even running Linux locally? And rdp depends way less on bitmap transfers than any modern X application. You seem illogical and clueless both.
Re: (Score:2)
Weyland Industries (Score:2)
Why does this sound like Weyland-Yutani?
Perhaps the company had humble roots as a Linux graphical toolkit developer instead of heavy industry.
Well. (Score:2)
Hello, LXDE....
One More Reason (Score:2, Interesting)
One more reason to abandon GNOME as it moves further from its UNIX roots. It's become a culture based on negativity and we-know-better-than-you.
Re: (Score:2)
Linux culture IS based on negativity and we-know-better-than-you.
Yeah, but most of the time it's a meritocracy and the ones writing the code actually DO know better. In the case of Gnome someone opened the peanut jar and gave them a bunch of keyboards. I'm not sure where they started getting braindead ideas like, "Let's only run on Linux" and "Let's screw the desktop for tablets." Is Mark Shuttleworth helping them decide what to do these days? That would make sense, when the suits get in control, things go downhill.
Re: (Score:2)
If MIR gets Wayland moving it was worth it (Score:2)
For all the screaming about MIR (from the exact same people who say that we need "competition" for MS/Apple/etc.), I really hope that the competition part of MIR finally gets the Wayland developers to stop screwing around with Wayland like its a toy and get it to the point where it can actually be deployed in real systems. And yes, despite the chagrin of the religious radicals on this site, that means opening up dialogs with AMD and Nvidia to get driver support too.
If Canonical's move actually spurs Waylan
Wayland still alive? (Score:5, Informative)
It looks to me that Wayland developers only have one desktop at home and were Windows users that want gaming on their linux box.
- What about asynchronous rendering? fast text scrolling in a windows like "find /" or "make -j32" thru a modem connection works in X11, I'd be surprised to see the same on Wayland.
- What about single GUI App running remotely: ssh to a cluster with no network card and need to start paraview or gnuplot? Should I run a full desktop with useless fancy gadgets just to see a gnuplot window?
- What about client application that freeze: Can't move the window because the decoration is done by the client?
- Wy can't I move parent windows when a modal window is open like a file selection dialog box. How do I move the parent app to see my shell window behind. Should I do the same as in windows: close the file selection dialog box move the windows and reopen the file selection dialog box?
- What about lost event because the client is buzy? I click on the button, but the event is lost because the client is buzy.....
Wayland is just a LOL in professional environment.
Thanksfully, I'm running KDE...The original desktop that Gnome tries to imitate since it's creation...I'm curious how it's manage the Wayland migration....
Re: (Score:2)
There are a dozen or so X servers available for Windows, both free and commercial. If your only choices are cygwin and a VM, you are incompetent. Perhaps you should be fired.
Sorry, had to be done... (Score:2)
Right, then. Carry on with the actual discussion. Sorry for the diversion.
bigger picture (Score:3, Interesting)
Here we have an identity crisis within the linux community, and I find it distressing how few people see the underlying opportunity. The decision between X and wayland/mir depends on what you think linux is. Is it an industrial-strength swiss army OS used by the technically inclined, or is it the platform upon which the tablet renaissance is being built? Of course it's both, so quit with the civil war and pay attention to what's happening in computing.
If general purpose computing is going to survive Apple, Microsoft and Google, we need a rich, high-performance compositor that can run on embedded devices AND a next generation framework for network transparency in applications, preferably in separate packages. Since I'm being dragged into cloud computing, I want to become my own cloud: I want to blur the line between my laptop, server, desktop, and tablet, but I want to do it in an open-source, platform agnostic way. I want to leave my CAD software running on my desktop and connect to it from my tablet to get dimensions for some part. I want automatic syncing ala dropbox for my LAN. I want to stream audio and video to my stereo without using airplay. I want generic compute jobs to be distributed to idle computers on my personal network. I want to lease an EC2 instance just for the week that I have to do some high-quality rendering and have my desktop parcel the job up and send it out to be executed with a minimum of manual plumbing.
In other words, I want network abstraction for input and display, a toolkit to aid with responsive UI design, local openGL compositing, a framework for exporting big, blind compute jobs, and some network utilities to help me get my services configured correctly, and I want them to be designed to work well together. Some of this is Hard but all of these technologies already exist in some form, they just haven't been integrated into a single open-source platform. Usable by consumers. Yet.
The open source community has the opportunity to stake a claim while the world of computing has been turned on its head. Fretting about X11-style network transparency at this point is like sweating over the future of IRC. (Hint: all my chatroom correspondence is now owned by some shitty company overvalued at $27 a share). When all new software is designed to run on top of webkit, will your remote GIMP even matter?
Wayland Remote Rendering (Score:5, Informative)
For everyone bitching about Wayland vs X11 and network transparency, you need to watch this talk [h-online.com] by Kristian Høgsberg. Keith and the rest of the devs have always said that remoting would eventually come down the pipeline.
And for everyone else talking about efficiency of sending pixmaps via the network, you should learn how your current stack actually works. It will be much better with Wayland.
I've used X11 since 1995, I'm very fond of it. But I also realize it needs to go...
Re:Wayland Remote Rendering (Score:4, Informative)
For those too lazy, fast forward to the 1:10 mark and watch. You'll realize that the remoting prototype for Walyand is pretty damn sweet.
Re: (Score:3)
I wish every single Wayland hater would be forced to watch that video and then think logically before making ignorant posts...
Re: (Score:3)
Haha! Funny country is that of yours. In mine, the gnomes come from gardens and other magical places.
Re: (Score:3)
Nono... That's TROLLS!
Gnomes are small cute persons. They're even smaller than halflings.
Sheeesh, kids these days...
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with too much fragmentation is that you never gain mainstream acceptance and it confusese developers who don't want to rewrite the tools that are fragmenting. Toolsets lose support, and if you developed your particular software on their toolsets then you're screwed.
It's nice to have options, unless you're the guy that chooses to implement your system on an option that is a deadend. Then you kinda wish for a Microsoft platform--something that's going to be around for a couple decades and you don'