Wayland 1.1 Released — Now With Raspberry Pi Support 197
An anonymous reader writes "Six months after the release of Wayland 1.0, versions 1.1 of Wayland and Weston have been released. Wayland/Weston 1.1 brings new back-end support for the Raspberry Pi, Pixman renderer, Microsoft Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP), and FBDEV frame-buffer device. Wayland/Weston 1.1 also introduces a modules SDK, supports the EGL buffer-age extension, touch-screen calibration support, and numerous optimizations and bug-fixes."
remote desktop vs windows (Score:2)
Does it support a way to handle remote windows yet? Or does it still only support an entire desktop remoted?
Re: (Score:2)
The use case I am thinking of is that I ssh into a machine, then run gvim to edit a file.
Re:remote desktop vs windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, ssh into a development server and run eclipse.
Or ssh into a new oracle host and launch the oracle installer
With Wayland soon we'll have to have full graphical installs on ever server rather than just the minimal xlib to support remote viewing of applications.
Re: (Score:3)
I would but I can't forward the display and do it remotely without a full desktop install on every server.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you installing Wayland on your servers?
Re: (Score:2)
How else would I run a Wayland app on the server but display it on my workstation?
Re: (Score:2)
Are there a lot of applications that strictly depend on Wayland?
Re: (Score:2)
No. He's just someone that has real world requirements that you would like to ignore.
While X haters were busy in their echo chamber, the rest of the world discovered the utility of network transparent GUIs.
Re: (Score:3)
but RDP is a network transparent GUI. How can it be anything else as it shows your GUI over the network.
X haters hate X because its just not as good as people think it is, especially over a slow link. It does everything X does, but faster and more efficiently. If you want to edit a file remotely, you RDP that app and work with it, or you remote the entire desktop (which is still faster than X remoting just the app) and run the edit program.
Re: (Score:2)
You appear to have just ignored a few examples where it doesn't. The many hosts to one or one host to many situations are also pretty obvious ones where the VNC or RDP approach doesn't work. It's not 1980 any more so a single user non-networked approach is very outdated.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not network transparent because I have to actually run it for it to work. I can run an app from my local terminal with the exact same command as I would use on a remote terminal.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying that Wayland apps can be run remotely over an ssh connection without a full install and something like RDP or VNC? Maybe I'll change my mind then.
Re: (Score:2)
So Wayland apps can be run as an X client?
Re:remote desktop vs windows (Score:5, Informative)
If our anonymous coward had a single clue, he would know that ssh is the preferred way to forward X11 SECURELY.
Re: (Score:2)
Not very good if you are in an edit, make, run loop.
Re: (Score:3)
Why not just ssh into the machine and run the regular vim from cli? =)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, as of a few weeks ago, support for FreeRDP [slashdot.org] is included.
Re: (Score:3)
I haven't tried it with FreeRDP, but Microsoft's version of RDP supports something called "RemoteApp" which lets you run individual programs with network transparency. Some googling turns up what looks to be a FreeRDP version of that [github.com].
Re: (Score:2)
That is encouraging, but from your link and from this one [microsoft.com], it still seems like a hack - i.e., it's not transparent. You have to jump through hoops evidently. The beauty of X11 is the network transparency. If I've got an ssh open to a remote host, all X11 apps I run on that conn
Re: (Score:2)
If I've got an ssh open to a remote host, all X11 apps I run on that connection on the remote host automatically appear on my own desktop without any special treatment at all.
No they don't. The reason they appear is because the environment variable $DISPLAY has been set to a particular value, and the application you are running is linked with libX11.so, which contains code that looks at $DISPLAY and determines that it needs to open an ssh connection back to another application running on your local machine
Re: (Score:3)
It's not yet clear that Wayland will ever support displaying less than a full desktop across a network connection, and nothing the developers have said suggests otherwise.
I've seen a demo that forwarded individual windows, and moreover managed to move and duplicate the single window over a couple of displays -- like xmove, but working (xmove never worked well, and is unmaintained now), with bonus features. Wayland will have these things in due course.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly, why do people hate on products that obviously don't meet there needs?
I understand being upset that something doesn't have what you want, but bashing the creators over and over again just gets old. If it doesn't do what you want, then just don't use it.
Wayland is designed to be much lighter than X11. It does this by offloading as much as possible onto either the kernel or the application. There are pros and cons to doing things this way. Just because you don't think it's worth it, doesn't mean
Re:remote desktop vs windows (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly, why do people hate on products that obviously don't meet there needs?
I understand being upset that something doesn't have what you want, but bashing the creators over and over again just gets old. If it doesn't do what you want, then just don't use it.
That's a great option, up until the point that it becomes a de facto standard. X11 is the de facto standard for graphics on Linux, and Wayland aims to replace it. We're all going to be stuck with Wayland, so we need to speak up and make sure the authors know what we need. I doubt RDP would have been included at all if we didn't bitch about the lack of X forwarding every time Wayland was mentioned.
There are pros and cons to doing things this way
I've yet to see any pros from switching to Wayland. Name one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. It's not hating the effort. It's not hating the people. It's not really even hating the project's direction per se - not if it could easily be ignored. It's hating that a good, serviceable system with valuable features (GNOME 2, X11) is likely to be REPLACED by an inferior one (GNOME 3, Wayland) lacking important features. Yes, it's still POSSIBLE with open source to forge your own way, but it's hardly practical to spend your effort fixing bad mainstream decisions when you have THINGS TO DO.
Re:remote desktop vs windows (Score:5, Interesting)
People who use X for features that Wayland does not support are the minority. A very vocal minority. This minority wants to impose its will over the majority.
Not only is the minority trying to tell the majority what to do, but the minority isn't even the ones who are doing the work, they're the leeches who benefit from the work of the majority.
I love how the whole GPL has breed a user base that has contempt for the developer base. If you don't like it, fork it and do it yourself. Quite your b@#ching
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't get all the hate Wayland gets.
I don't get all the hate Xorg gets.
The developers of X don't even like X.
The users of X like X just fine.
the majority of people don't want to use X because of its performance limitations.
What performance limitations? I have a beautiful hardware accelerated desktop that responds instantly every time. I can run cross platform 3d games at the same speed on both Windows and X. What does Wayland actually do for me?
People who use X for features that Wayland does not sup
Re: (Score:2)
The developers of X don't even like X.
The users of X like X just fine.
Isn't it telling that the people developing X think it's the wrong solution for the current state of computing? Heck, even the network transparency (what I most often hear people raving about X) is just a slow way to send around bitmaps, because the rendering is rarely done using the X rendering primitives.
Re:remote desktop vs windows (Score:5, Interesting)
In the discussions I've seen, there are Wayland fanbois and there are Wayland developers, and there's a big difference between the two camps.
The Wayland fanbois disparage network transparency and consider those who need it to be dinosaurs.
The Wayland developers, on the other hand, seem to overlap considerably with X11 developers, and well understand the need for network transparency. Apparently they're too busy working to be very vocal, so most impressions of Wayland are being put out there by the fanbois.
My impression is that a large part of X11 is really deprecated, left there because it's legacy, might be used, and can't go away. Another way of looking at Wayland is to first strip X11 down to the "real and recent use model," (ie qt/gtk toolkits, etc) look at what you've got left and make some optimizations, strip the obviously defunct parts out of the protocol, make some more optimizations, etc. X11 today isn't even really what X11 was a decade or more ago, it just has backward support for the old X11.
Re: (Score:2)
"De facto" isn't really a thing in the world of Linux distributions.
Re: (Score:2)
> Honestly, why do people hate on products that obviously don't meet there needs?
That usually has to do with the product in question being shoved down everyone's throats.
Re: (Score:2)
> Honestly, why do people hate on products that obviously don't meet there needs?
That usually has to do with the product in question being shoved down everyone's throats.
I fail to see how Wayland, or any open source software can be "shoved down" your throat. If you don't like it, don't use it. Or modify it to suit your needs (and hopefully) release that. That's the OSS way. I'd like to add "And don't bitch about it" but we all know that's untrue. We love bitching; that will never go away. I often think these holy wars are created on purpose just for the drama they cause on Usenet, forums, and mailing lists. But I digress.
If the amount of bile being spewed about Wayland is a
Re: (Score:2)
I fail to see how Wayland, or any open source software can be "shoved down" your throat.
If software you need depends on Wayland, then it is indeed being shoved down your throat.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you are saying is that the vendor who provides the software that you need is forcing Wayland down your throat. That is a big difference because that means you need to bitch at the software vendor and not the Wayland crew.
Re:remote desktop vs windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Bitching at Wayland devs has turned "not planned, out of scope" into "working RDP implementation available". It seems to be fairly effective.
Re:remote desktop vs windows (Score:4, Interesting)
Which software depends on Wayland? I'm curious, because I can't think of any.
A backend-agnostic toolkit such as Qt will be an equal citizen on X11, Wayland, Mir, Win32, OS X, Android, Haiku. It should be possible to run the same binary on the same host selecting X11 or Wayland as a backend by loading the appropriate .so at runtime.
So at what point does such software 'depend' on Wayland?
* When a vendor statically links a binary against Wayland? - complain to the vendor, you're paying for it.
* When a remote machine doesn't include the X11 backend? - complain to the sysadmin
* When the Wayland backend supports extra 'bling' ? add the eye-candy to the X11 backend
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, it just means that Wayland is a poor fit for your niche use case.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that is arguable. But you would have to explain what you gain by discarding a feature that already works fine, and why that gain is worth the sacrifice.
Re: (Score:3)
Wayland is being made for a set of use cases that don't perfectly match those of X11.
If said use cases are important to you, you're free to make your own replacement or keep using X11, or pay someone else to do so for you. Accusing people of being Apple fanboys in completely unrelated stories is unlikely to garner your cause much support, however.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this what qualifies as an argument on Slashdot these days? Idiocy like this?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no reason it couldn't send a surface over the wire.
Bandwidth and CPU power. It takes a lot more of those to send a compressed image over the wire than it does to send the instructions to build an image. Add in compression and caching with NX, and X-forwarding is the best performing remote display mechanism in existance.
Re: (Score:2)
or it would be, if all desktop/apps were composed of pure vectors and not contain bitmap images. How does X transfer a bitmap? Much more poorly than RDP does. X might have been a good thing back in the day of TWM and similar, but if you want to use X today with todays' highly graphical desktop environments, then it shows its no longer suitable.
I don't know if keeping X as well as RDP is worthwhile - if RDP performed better than X for the worst case (lots of bitmaps) and as well as X for the best case (vecto
Re: (Score:2)
or it would be, if all desktop/apps were composed of pure vectors and not contain bitmap images.
Vectors are getting more and more common. SVG is used for just about everything in KDE 4.
if you want to use X today with todays' highly graphical desktop environments
I just want to use X with highly useful applications. I could not give a shit if the desktop environment was highly graphical. That's the problem with Wayland. They put eye candy above powerful features.
I think you'll be surprised at the performa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What I'm most surprised about is the audacity of some of the fanboy claims without any benchmarks to back them up. I'm mostly thinking of a different poster that frequently places a pile of "x sux" drivel here along with some cutting and pasting of things out of context that he did not understand, but even with your comment above I'd really like to see some sign o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It takes a lot more of those to send a compressed image over the wire than it does to send the instructions to build an image
This is false. Have you ever worked with 3D output. We use NX here and to run VirtualGL because the bandwidth to send the image of the GL window is about 1/20th the size of the GLX requests.
As many others have pointed out this is also false for most modern 2D applications because they render locally and send images. This could be blamed on the lack of a PostScript/SVG capable renderin
Re: (Score:3)
Bandwidth and CPU power. It takes a lot more of those to send a compressed image over the wire than it does to send the instructions to build an image.
That would be true if modern applications still used X11 graphics primitives. But they don't. It's not 1985 any more; 8x8 bitmap fonts and non-anti-aliased Bresenham lines don't cut it these days. And those are the kinds of graphics primitives X11 supports. As a result, modern UIs generally use a third-party library such as cairo for everything, then the bi
Re: (Score:2)
It's hardly an esoteric feature. It is completely fundamental to the highly successful design philosophy.
Running X11 as a separate window under Wayland, in which X apps are second class citizens on the desktop, is hardly going to be accepted as an adequate solution.
Re: (Score:3)
This got hashed out around here two weeks ago. [slashdot.org]
They seem to be going the RDP route for network apps. I'll have to leave criticism to the experts, but my own experience is that RDP on Windows has much better performance than X via ssh or VNC. And as of MS Server 2008, single apps can be shared (TS Remote Apps) - no longer do you need to share the entire desktop. I have no experience with FreeNX, because the servers I remote into don't have it installed.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is, how easy is it to use? With X forwarding, it's nothing more than 'ssh -X remotehost', then just run your program. Is RDP on Wayland going to be as convenient?
Re: (Score:2)
That would require a similar flag get built into ssh. I use "-Y" :)
Re: (Score:2)
ssh can proxy arbitrary connections with 'ssh -D'. Something like 'ssh -D 88888 wayland-rdp -port 8888 xterm' would be acceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this page [github.com] describes how it would (theoretically) work with the current implementation. Definitely some room for improvement in terms of usability, but it doesn't look too bad.
Re: (Score:2)
That's really bad. With SSH, I can log in, cd to the directory I need to be in as if it were local, and run the app as if it were local, and it "just works".
With this setup, it looks like I'm going to have to ssh into the remote machine, cd to the directory I need to be in, copy down that path, then run 'which' and copy down that path. Then I need to leave my ssh session, and construct an invocation of freerdp that includes both the paths I copied down before.
The great thing about X forwarding is that fro
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I've never tried this method. It looks to me like they are opening CMD (on Windows) using this command. Depending on how RDP works, it's not inconceivable that further commands will pop open windows on the same RDP connection.
I've had the rare ill-behaved X application ignore the environmental variable for DISPLAY and cause me trouble, but on the whole it works really well with the -Y flag in ssh once you have your local X server configured.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't answer for Wayland, but on Windows you just type "mstsc" [microsoft.com] and provide whatever options you want (typically mstsc /v:remotehost)
Once connected and logged in, you get your remote desktop (or app, as some people have said you can access just an app remotely) and you can do whatever you want as if you're running the remote computer locally.
I imagine Wayland client will be of similar complexity, especially if its a compatible protocol.
Re:remote desktop vs windows (Score:4, Insightful)
The question is, how easy is it to use? With X forwarding, it's nothing more than 'ssh -X remotehost', then just run your program.
Geeze Hatta, have some faith. If not in the Wayland developers themselves (who are also X developers and have some cred here, IIRC), then in the developers, distributions, and users of the Linux community writ large that will evaluate, integrate, and extend Wayland if it's advantageous over X or ignore if it's not.
Everyone, including the Wayland developers, understands that network transparency is a necessary, compelling feature. It may undergo a shakeup and it may not be fully baked on day 1, but it will happen.
Re:remote desktop vs windows (Score:5, Informative)
Wayland's native remoting protocol is under development but "only at the proof of concept state". http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~krh/weston/log/?h=remote [freedesktop.org] http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/2013-April/008555.html [freedesktop.org]
All the people talking about RDP keep in mind that that's a stopgap and won't be needed long-term.
Re: (Score:2)
The fanboys compare it to X but it has a completely different purpose - it's the new SVGAlib.
Re: (Score:2)
- Another new back-end is providing RDP support, Microsoft's Remote Desktop Protocol. While this isn't the proper remote Wayland implementation previously talked about with experimental code, RDP clients can now connect to this Weston back-end that is compliant with FreeRDP.
wm api (Score:2, Interesting)
Can anyone point me to the docs for writing my own window manager?
Re: (Score:2)
Why so much Wayland? (Score:4, Insightful)
Call me ignorant. but can someone explain why we have more than a post per week either about or mentioning Wayland for the last couple of months? Is it really that interesting for the average /. user to hear about every feature added to Wayland or every project/company whatever that supports or does not support Wayland in some way? Or is it just one of those strange obsessions of the /. editors?
I understand it is an important project, supposed to be the successor to X11 etc so it has more interest to geeks than, say, bitcoins, but is it really that interesting?
Re: (Score:2)
Because there's been a lot of activity in the desktop rendering space, particularly with Canonical using SurfaceFlinger and announcing Mir amid a spray of FUD.
Of course, we could just start arbitrarily ignoring projects and other things that Ecuador doesn't like.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, we could just start arbitrarily ignoring projects and other things that Ecuador doesn't like.
Yes, please, can we go back to Assange and how Ecuador offered him asylum?
Re: (Score:2)
Say what you want about Canonical, but Mir apparently kicked the Wayland developers in the ass and got them working again. Which is why there are so many posts about Wayland recently.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm reading. This is the kind of stuff I come to read, though sometimes I admit getting sucked into the trolling articles about BIG COMPANY X suing BIG COMPANY Y.
Re:Why so much Wayland? (Score:5, Funny)
wayland is a pyramid scheme. the editors have mined lots of waylands when they were cheap, and now they are trying to push the price up so they can sell them all. anyone who thinks a wayland is worth $200 is a fool. they are only good for buying drugs. back to the gold standard. get off my lawn. waste of energy. where's my gun.
Re:Why so much Wayland? (Score:5, Informative)
I should probably say I am not anti wayland (though X11 works well for me on a wide range of hardware including my phone). But the linux.conf.au 2013 talk makes a pretty good case https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIctzAQOe44 [youtube.com] (it should also be required viewing before anyone is allowed to comment on wayland)
Re: (Score:2)
...and I am happy as a clam with all of my Steam games.
As an end user, even neglecting remote desktop use cases, I am still missing the point of trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Re:Why so much Wayland? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I understand it is an important project, supposed to be the successor to X11 etc so it has more interest to geeks than, say, bitcoins, but is it really that interesting?
I find them quite interesting and would like the rate of Wayland news to be kept at its current level.
Re: (Score:2)
Because topics likes these generate web traffic. Bitcoin stories generate debates on its merits as a currency. Waveland stories generate X must live, RDP is better than X, and Linux may finally catchup debates.
There may be more legitimate stories out there, but it wouldn't generate as much traffic and therefore aren't favored as much by this and other tech news si
Re: (Score:2)
So like Anonymous, but with cowards instead of script kiddies? And we could meet in super secret IRC chatrooms and, you know, hang out and talk smack about all the drones and fanbois. Oh, and we could all post at the same time, wouldn't it be super awesome if there were 31 frits prost!'s? Oh the glory.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.
It's been way too many years, so in the public interest for niche stories spurred by proponents and detractors alike: it was reported that Natalie Portman suffered a wardrobe malfunction yesterday while walking down a sidewalk. One of her socks 'accidentally' slipped, exposing an ankle. Since the other ankle remained covered, the question "Is one larger than the other?" is as yet un-answered. No pics yet, so it didn't happen.
Raspberry and rhubarb pie, now that is something that matters. De gusti
Yay for delivering results (Score:2)
You can dream up all the X replacements you want, but you need to deliver working code.
Good job Wayland.
I'm Stoked (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing you didn't notice ... (Score:2)
Re:One thing you didn't notice ... (Score:4, Interesting)
I expect differences:
- The GL part is the same, the renderer side is not.
- The input subsystem is different.
- Everything's Asynchronous by default
- Daniel Stone testing Chrome startup showed that 497ms was due to just waiting for X responses (rendering & input).
- Fewer context switches. Less message passing (since WM & rendering are 1 process).
- Multiple GPUs for rendering are exposed to user-space
About Drivers:
- With Android drivers supported, Games can run on GPUs they couldn't have before.
Re: (Score:3)
Me too. And Weston sounds like a gun that didn't quite kill enough people to achieve legendary status.
I still prefer X.... (Score:2)
On the one hand I am beginning to find this development interesting.
On the other hand, we already have a proven stable graphical application protocol. It's called X and it's been around for 30 years. I just don't get it. Why reinvent the wheel?
Re: (Score:2)
Because of all the unused cruft in X that makes maintaining it a hairy beast.
Re: (Score:2)
Wayland promises to eliminate tearing, lag, redrawing or flicker, which would be a welcome change.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not reinventing the wheel so much as reorganizing it to remove legacy cruft from the performance-critical hotpath b/t clients and hardware.
From the Wayland architecture overview [freedesktop.org]:
Most of the complexity that the X server used to handle is now available in the kernel or self contained libraries (KMS, evdev, mesa, fontconfig, freetype, cairo, Qt, etc). In general, the X server is now just a middle man that introduces an extra step between applications and the compositor and an extra step between the compositor and the hardware.
Dead on arrival? (Score:2)
At the most optimistic, Wayland is still one or two years away from mainstream use. Even then, most apps will run under the rootless X server.
X will finally disappear if and when all apps upgrade to GTK3 or QT5 (which might be never).
Wayland is X designed properly, however it is basically the same thing. It does not seem to yet acknowledge the wider changing context within which desktop Linux has to operate, i.e. we are moving away from a world where manufacturers produce devices for Windows (and don't care
Re: (Score:3)
FYI: wayland can use android drivers http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/04/11/2147208/jolla-ports-wayland-to-android-gpu-drivers [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Even years from now there will still be a few people who do actual work, and they won't be using tablets to do it. They'll be using computers and they'll need an OS which is optimized for productivity, not gaming, watching movies, tweeting, or shopping at Amazon. Few as they are, these people are willing to pay real money for a computer, like $2,000. Perhaps that is what GNOME and KDE should focus on, considering that Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Canonical don't care.
Re: (Score:2)
Even years from now there will still be a few people who do actual work, and they won't be using tablets to do it.
Are you sure about that? My phone has more processing power than my desktop did just 8-10 years ago. In fact my phone is so fast there really is no reason why I shouldn't be able to dock it to a monitor with a bluetooth keyboard/mouse and get all of my work done on it. Then undock it and take it with me wherever I go.
I have a full office suite on my phone. It does exchange activesync. I have a multitude of HTML5 compatible web browsers capable of handling most of the web applications I work with.
I'm seeing
Re: (Score:2)
I think he means "a large screen that can hold more than one job at a time". Desktop has nothing to do with how powerful the machine is, and I really would not be surprised if in the end the machines on desktops and in phones are of equal power (probably because the desktop is just a screen communicating with bluetooth to a phone that is the actual computer).
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm thinking 30" monitor + keyboard + mouse, apps that aren't forced full screen, a real file system instead of crippled sandboxes, etc. If tablets can deliver that, more power to 'em, but I doubt it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see any actual argument being made here that highlights how Wayland could possibly be obsolete by the time it is widely deployed. Mir doesn't even exist, and the only arguments for it were purely uninformed FUD.
Re: (Score:2)
At the most optimistic, Wayland is still one or two years away from mainstream use.
The most optimistic projection is that Wayland will never be in mainstream use.
Even then, most apps will run under the rootless X server.
Leaving us endlessly confused over how to forward apps over the network. And leading to all sorts of confusion about window managers and decorations.
X will finally disappear if and when all apps upgrade to GTK3 or QT5 (which might be never).
As if those are the only toolkits in existence. Wh
Re: (Score:2)
Lies. There's nothing wrong with X that can be attributed to the protocol. It's the Xorg codebase that's gotten unwieldy. Wayland throws the baby out with the bathwater.
Holy shit (Score:2)
First.. this thread is already amazing for the shit being peddled, and the non factual based opinion.
From what I've read, the X devs don't like X. They don't think its network transparent, and they really don't like this idea that X is it.
They are trying to fix a lot of problems through wayland. It seems to me that Linux should really put a lot of weight behind wayland, not so it purely replaces X, but so the underlying work can be done to find the best solutions.
X has serious problems. And these are not li
Wayland / X comparison (Score:3, Informative)
Too many flames in these weekly Wayland discussions and not enough facts (or maybe the facts are downmodded; I've gotten to the point where if I look at a wayland article, I don't read all of the comments).
So, I just spent 5 or 10 minutes skimming the Wayland FAQ [freedesktop.org] and architecture diagram [freedesktop.org].
For comparison, when running X, you might have an ordinary window manager or you might have a compositing window manager [wikipedia.org]. The Wayland model is that it *is* a compositor that provides both window manager functions and some of the functionality of an X server.
Intentionally misstating things rather badly, it sounds like the reason Wayland doesn't support remote displays is because it also doesn't support local displays! More accurately, wayland supports local displays (of course), but unlike X11 provides no way to render to them. Wayland doesn't do rendering; it apparently "just" knows how to swap video buffers to a display device and coordinate buffers between multiple clients.
I'm thinking that, for example, if you want to write a graphical app, you might target OpenGL or cario and then expect your code to work in both Unix (with X) and on Windows (without X). With Unix/X, I'd expect an opengl library that handed X primitives to the X server. With Wayland, you'd apparently have an opengl library that rendered to a buffer and then handed the buffer off to the Wayland compositor.
So, Wayland isn't doing some of the things we'd expect an X server to do. Wayland is never working with drawing primitives. It seems obvious that you'd never be able to run apps that use the old X toolkit libraries against Wayland without an X server in the picture. And, the FAQ admits this and notes that you'll need an X server in addition to Wayland for the foreseeable future.
However, as others have noted, an obvious question is how efficiently a "native" Wayland app could be displayed remotely. If the app and its libraries are rendering graphics primitives into display buffers, it seems obvious that low level primitive operations are lost by the time wayland gets the buffers, so you now have to be able to efficiently transmit bitmap deltas. Queue arguments re whether drawing primitives are more efficient or bitmaps are more efficient... OTOH, it seems unlikely that apps would include their own rendering code instead of using as library. So, we can hope that the libraries offer both wayland and X backends, I guess.
Not an X server developer nor a Wayland developer. I'm sure I garbled things somewhat, but perhaps someone could clarify the mistakes and help take a portion of the FUD out of the weekly Wayland discussions.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. That whole MS-DOS dominance of desktop computing had nothing do do with anything.