Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
X GUI Graphics

X.Org Server 1.15 Brings DRI3, Lacks XWayland Support 340

An anonymous reader writes "A belated holiday gift for Linux users is the X.Org Server 1.15 'Egg Nog' release. X.Org Server 1.15 presents new features including DRI3 — a big update to their rendering model — a rewrite of the GLX windowing system code, support for Mesa Mega Drivers, and many bug fixes plus polishing. The release, though, goes without any mainline support for XWayland to ease the adoption of the Wayland Display Server while maintaining legacy X11 application support."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

X.Org Server 1.15 Brings DRI3, Lacks XWayland Support

Comments Filter:
  • Good! (Score:4, Funny)

    by adolf ( 21054 ) <flodadolf@gmail.com> on Sunday December 29, 2013 @05:03AM (#45810307) Journal

    Yet another good reason to disparage Wayland: Not even X supports it.

    • It could also be argued that you should jump to Wayland because X does not support it.

      • by adolf ( 21054 )

        No. *I* don't support Wayland.

        That X also does not support Wayland is just win-win.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 29, 2013 @05:44AM (#45810411)
    Its not obvious to me that XWayland and X should be merged. XWayland is a compatibility layer for Wayland, and the only things in needs to support is the published interface. Changes to the rendering model may well be irrelevant, as XWayland would render through the Wayland display layer anyway.
    • by raxx7 ( 205260 )

      XWayland is a modified version of the X.org server, which instead of rendering though the kernel/hardware, renders as a Wayland client.
      It makes no sense to try and maintain XWayland as a separate fork of the X.org server.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 29, 2013 @07:22AM (#45810649)

    It is asking too much for a link to *official* sources? (Hint: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-announce/2013-December/002384.html)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 29, 2013 @07:24AM (#45810655)

    Having seen terrible X compatibility layers for Mac OS X and Windows, I have got to ask if I should expect XWayland to be better? Integration between applications talking the X protocol and applications talking a proprietary protocol has been ranging from terrible to nonexistent. Some implementations have taken the approach of creating a window inside which all X applications are rendered. This has potential for great compatibility among the X applications, but they are demoted to second class citizens, with no chance of integrating with anything happening outside that window. Others have been rendering X applications each in a separate window. But usually they still cannot see windows opened by applications talking the proprietary protocol, and thus cannot interact with them. Secondly that design has a tendency to treat windows opened by an X application I just started as if it was just one more window opened by another X application, which was already running. For example on Windows, that causes new windows to be opened behind existing windows instead of in front.

    The lack of X has been the main technical drawback Mac OS X has been having compared to Linux. I'd much rather see Mac OS X catch up with Linux than for Linux to go down to the level of Mac OS X.

    • by raxx7 ( 205260 )

      I can't even remember what trying to use X under Windows was like. $DEITY bless memory loss.

      For Mac OS X, you have XQuartz. It consists of a modified X.org server and a custom window manager and from what my Mac OS X wielding colleagues say, it works pretty well. I don't think it suffers of any of the issues you mention.

      XWayland is expected to work seamlessly as well.

    • by Mr Thinly Sliced ( 73041 ) on Sunday December 29, 2013 @08:01AM (#45810751) Homepage Journal

      > Having seen terrible X compatibility layers for Mac OS X and Windows

      The OSX X (XQuartz) implementation _is_ xorg-server (currently 1.14.4) - you know, the one used on Linux (with certain OSX specific tweaks to allow non-root mode)

      The problems you mention with interoperability are largely down to the core windowing systems being vastly different models. We can argue about which model is correct but the interoperability problems are a side effect of different models - not evidence of a particular model being bad.

      I'm not convinced from your descriptions here you quite understand the complexity of the interactions.

      > The lack of X has been the main technical drawback Mac OS X has been
      > having compared to Linux.
      > I'd much rather see Mac OS X catch up with Linux than for Linux to go down
      > to the level of Mac OS X.

      OSX has vsync based updates, sensible event handling and lots of core library stuff (like the AVFramework) that makes it a pleasure to program compared to XWindows.

      The Linux desktop _needs_ to get off X. It's an outdated behemoth with a model that is way out of date. Now you could say "well let's update the model then".

      Sure, you can do that. And when you do that, you get Wayland.

      • ensible event handling and lots of core library stuff (like the AVFramework) that makes it a pleasure to program compared to XWindows.

        You know none of that stuff is in wayland either?

        Also what's wrong with X event handling? You can select() on the events just like any others. Also, I've touched on OSX video handling. This is not a high point of OSX. Decoding a video and getting at the pixels is far, far better under ffmpeg than OSX.

        And there's a reason that machine vision people use the libdc1394 ported fro

        • > You know none of that stuff is in wayland either?

          Yep, I was replying to GPs assertion that OSX has to catch up to X11.

          > Also what's wrong with X event handling? You can select() on the events just like any others.

          Have you ever written a real X protocol application or used one? Xedit, for example. The code is a mess of anachronisms (events targeted to sub-windows - if you are using them - modern toolkits don't now, excessively verbose error handling due to the historical cruft in the protocol etc) th

  • When Citrix came out with ICA that should have been an indication where remote display tech should be headed, then we have Microsoft doing RDP and now the king pin is VMware with PCoIP. What we need is a way to remote a whole computer and not just the graphics. Why?

    ALL USERS want the following:
    1) Remote sound
    2) Remote USB
    3) Video Acceleration between a client and server

    Why so that simple web pages with Flash content do not suck. And so that all this crappy USB stuff that end users have purchased can work

  • by hlub ( 153437 ) on Sunday December 29, 2013 @08:38AM (#45810893)

    In a country long ago and far away there lived the good King X the eleventh.

    He had a lot of ministers, the most important of which had become the minister of Composition. His job was to have peoples houses painted. If you wanted your house painted, you would have to ask the King. Every day the king would spend long hours with the minister of Composition, who would know all the houses in the country, had an exact knowledge of the Royal Paint Budget, and could call in the painters.

    Although almost everyone lived in the capital called Localhost the King would sometimes travel around the country and kindly hear peoples paint requests. Every night the King would return to his palace, talk to the minister of Composition, and then decide whether you could have your house painted, and when.

    Then on a dark winter's night, a group of grumpy people thought how much more efficient it would be if everyone would talk to the minister of Composition directly. Thus the Wayland Conspiracy was born. The next day, at daybreak, they deposed the good King and made the minister of Composition the head of state: president Compositor. To cater for the few people in remote villages they re-appointed the King as secratary to the president: the Secretary for Remote Villages. He would still travel around the country (albeit in a suit, and without his crown). He would still talk to president Compositor every night, like in the old days.

    The press in other counties, like Windonia and Applestan, were very positive: finally this backward country had a modern government. Now its poor inhabitants could have the same beautiful colored houses they had. Welcome to the modern world!

    The people in the country itself didn't notice a lot of difference, however. In the old days things took a little longer, but not everyone needs his house painted every day. Many still called the Secretary for Remote Villages "King", especially in the countryside.

    But the people in Windonia and Applestan were very satisfied: they always had felt that their geovernment was superior, and the Wayland revolution had proved their point.

    The King just smiled.

    • Friends, Country Men (and Women)!

      This propaganda is exactly that which the Royalists would have you believe - without telling the complete story of waste and unsightliness they would foist upon us once again should we believe their lies!

      Our royalist friend has failed to mention that under the Kings rule, some houses would remain half painted for a full day! It was due to the King having only limited time with which to grant delegation powers to the Minister of Composition who was powerless to get painting d

    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      A strange tale from a strange land.

      I live in a country where the painting is done in each village by their respective mayor and painters. And every citizen of my country is free to own multiple houses, some in different villages. Upon needing my fishing cabin, ski chalet or vacation home painted, I simply submit the request to the local mayor.

      Some mayors are unhappy with this arrangement, as it tends to undermine their tax base and political power. Were it that there was only one Compositor mayor availabl

  • by caseih ( 160668 ) on Sunday December 29, 2013 @12:19PM (#45811991)

    I believe he's still part of X.org anyway, but he's working exclusively on Wayland.

    For everyone that disparages Wayland without really understanding anything about Wayland, which seems to be most everyone, I highly recommend listening to this talk by a core X.org developer:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIctzAQOe44 [youtube.com]

    TL;DR points:
    - X11 is no longer "network transparent" and hasn't been so in a long time, due to reliance on DRI, Xrender, Xvideo, etc.
    - X11 is already used in a manner that is similar to Wayland but with a very poor inter-process communication layer and synchronization issues, with most of X11's core bypassed (server-side fonts, drawing APIs, etc).
    - X11 when used remotely is already like VNC, but very poor at it. Lots of round-trips, etc, all to show bitmaps.

    In the end, there are a few things I need from Wayland, and I think they will be there in the end:
    - app-based network transparency, not just remote desktop
    - middle click paste. Maybe done with a virtual frame buffer and rdp to ship the final rendering across the wire.
    - customizable focus policy (focus follows mouse, click to raise)
    - user replaceable window/composite managers

    I suspect we'll lose a few features that very few people use such as using a remote window manager to manage windows on a local server. For example, running Xming on Windows, and then running metacity or even twm on my remote linux machine. A full remote desktop would probably be the way to go here with wayland. And faster.

"So why don't you make like a tree, and get outta here." -- Biff in "Back to the Future"