Seriously?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| r_a_trip May 19, 2013 8:36 PM EDT |
No mention of Wayland and presenting hijack project Mir as the much needed successor to X11? Is The VAR Guy a marketing arm of Canonical? |
| linux4567 May 19, 2013 9:32 PM EDT |
There is no need for any successor to X11, too many people seem to be h#ll bent on destroying everything that's great about Unix (and what Linux inherited from Unix). |
| rahulsundaram May 19, 2013 11:47 PM EDT |
There is certainly a need for a successor and the need for it is recognized by Xorg developers themselves and Wayland from Xorg foundation will play that role. |
| linux4567 May 20, 2013 9:01 AM EDT |
I guess it depends how you define 'need'. If the need is for a flashy showy 3D GUI then perhaps, but X11 has so much more to offer that calling Wayland a valid replacement for X11 is just daft. At best Wayland is an alternative GUI for niche applications like handheld devices, but for a standard desktop it's no match at all for X11. |
| Fettoosh May 20, 2013 9:42 AM EDT |
Quoting:too many people seem to be h#ll bent on destroying everything that's great about Unix (and what Linux inherited from Unix). X11 isn't going any where soon and Wayland will not replace X11 unless after it is successful and furnishes much better all what X11 has been offering for so long. There are reasons why Waland is better than X, and there is a lot more about the two over the Internet to read about them. It seems the X.org developers are convinced that Wayland is going to enhance and advance the Linux OS, and no one can stop them from trying, so why don't we wait and see? Everything that FOSS has it has two or more of, even Linux. It is a matter of making multiple choices available. so why not X11? Like I said in a different thread, change is beneficial either way. If it is good, more progress, if it is not, it is a lesson learned. |
| Bob_Robertson May 20, 2013 11:45 AM EDT |
> If it is good, more progress, if it is not, it is a lesson learned. Indeed. |
| jdixon May 20, 2013 2:42 PM EDT |
> if it is not, it is a lesson learned. Well, you have to keep in mind that some lessons are fatal. |
| Fettoosh May 20, 2013 3:37 PM EDT |
That is possible when breaking new ground. But in the context of change, it is always possible to fallback to the original. |
| jdixon May 20, 2013 4:04 PM EDT |
> But in the context of change, it is always possible to fallback to the original. For the overall ecosystem, yes. But for the entity attempting the change, possibly not. |
| Bob_Robertson May 20, 2013 4:57 PM EDT |
Evolution is not particularly safe for the individual, no matter how beneficial for the species. |
| linux4567 May 20, 2013 5:35 PM EDT |
The problems will start once some applications start supporting Wayland rather than X11, at that point the choice is between missing out on some new applications or missing out on all the powerful and unique features that X11 offers (network transparency, etc). That's why I consider Wayland a very bad idea that will only further divide the Linux world. X11 is like a Toyota LandCruiser than can carry pretty much everything over any kind of terrain with reasonable speed and comfort, while Wayland is more like a Corvette useful only to carry a very limited number of people and baggage and only on smooth roads. Out of the two the Toyota LandCruiser would serve well almost everybody, while the Corvette would only be useful to people who like to show off and drive fast in very specific circumstances. |
| gus3 May 20, 2013 5:56 PM EDT |
And yet, in the wrong hands, each can be dangerous. |
| Fettoosh May 20, 2013 6:08 PM EDT |
Quoting:at that point the choice is between missing out on some new applications or missing out on all the powerful and unique features that X11 offers (network transparency, etc). As far as I can recall, Wayland will have support for X11. Consequently, all X11 apps should still work. Complexity of X11 & Simplicity of Wayland architecture Wayland Supports X11 XWayland Updated Against X.Org Server 1.12 |
| gus3 May 20, 2013 6:20 PM EDT |
Wayland supports X11? Big deal; so does Java. There is nothing new under the Sun, no matter how badly Larry Ellison wants to convince us otherwise. |
| linux4567 May 20, 2013 6:42 PM EDT |
Yes X11 apps should still work on Wayland, but that wasn't my point, it's the other way round that matters as I have no intention of giving up all the features that X11 offers (first and foremost network transparency) for flashy GUI effects! And running them both together as I read somewhere is certainly not a solution more like a sure-fire way to hell, Windows Vista is probably still leaner than a Wayland + X11 combo... |
| Fettoosh May 20, 2013 8:48 PM EDT |
Quoting:Windows Vista is probably still leaner than a Wayland + X11 combo The new computing ecosystem is going to be dominated by very small form factor devices. Such devices require a very light efficient window rendering system. I am afraid you just have to stick with Windows Vista. Nope, that won't work either since Vista won't have network transparency. |
| linux4567 May 20, 2013 9:04 PM EDT |
> Such devices require a very light efficient window rendering system Nonsense, the average current smartphone has more RAM and CPU capacity and GPU power than a desktop PC 8 years ago, which had no problems running X11. |
| caitlyn May 20, 2013 11:20 PM EDT |
The fact is that many users (not geeks) want very sophisticated multimedia apps and games. Most users seem to love bling. X11 is showing its age in many ways and Wayland is the future for good reason. Mir, OTOH, is about fragmentation and making Ubuntu different. That I don't get at all. |
| Fettoosh May 21, 2013 9:11 AM EDT |
Quoting:Nonsense, the average current smartphone has more RAM and CPU capacity and GPU power than a desktop PC 8 years ago And still very clunky on small devices like tablets & smart phones. These devices are touch screen highly interactive interface and people using them want an instantaneous response. X11, inherently is a heavy weight and does a lot of things that act as boot anchor since they are not needed for such devices. Like I said before, X11 has a lot of old and stale code that evolved over so many years and very hard to maintain and support let alone expand. It needs to be rewritten to be cleaned out and refreshed and might as well make it based on new technologies. |
| linux4567 May 21, 2013 9:23 AM EDT |
I didn't claim that X11 should be used on a smartphone, but why repeat the mistake Microsoft made with Win8 by trying to use the same interface for handheld devices and desktops? X11 is still the best solution for desktops (and mouse driven laptops) by far, while Wayland might be the best solution for handheld devices. There is no need to force desktops to use technology designed for touchscreen handheld devices. It's just plain common sense, but that seems to be a rare feature these days... |
| Bob_Robertson May 21, 2013 9:34 AM EDT |
Looking at that graphic comparing Wayland and X11, the difference seems to be that the compositor isn't in the X core, while it is in the Wayland core, which makes Wayland more efficient for that example. So why is the compositor outside of the X core? If this is such an obvious fix, then fix it. Much like the kernel scheduler, it took Colvas to come in and shake everyone up and then real progress was made. Maybe Wayland will give X11 a "wake up call"? |
| r_a_trip May 21, 2013 10:07 AM EDT |
Quoting:So why is the compositor outside of the X core? The same reason all of the modern stuff is outside of the X core. Put it in the core and you break the X11 protocol specification. The X-server on modern Linux systems has become a menial and inefficient IPC mechanism. The real actions are carried out by extensions that try to bypass the crufty X server as much as possible. The X.org consortium could have designed X12 with compositing in it, but X12 would have been something building on X11 and that would have brought in unnecesarry, old cruft one way or the other. Wayland is a clean break. It reuses as much of the modern X extensions as possible and it's architecture is simple and clean, so it should last quite a while. |
| Bob_Robertson May 21, 2013 10:24 AM EDT |
So, a question related to the best of what I understand as X, Is Wayland as network invisible as X? When I "ssh -Y" into a remote system, will Wayland open graphic applications seamlessly on my local display the way X does? I think that's the real killer feature of X. |
| thenixedreport May 21, 2013 10:28 AM EDT |
Canonical is doing their thing with Mir for the same reason that Linux Mint is using Cinnamon for their desktop environment; control and flexibility for their own ends. They don't have to fight upstream all the time, so they can put in the features that they want and they can design it the way they want without having to wade through communication lines with upstream projects. Personally, I like the idea of choice, and I wouldn't be surprised if an all encompassing graphical system were to come out due to inspiration from Wayland, Mir, X11, etc.... There are scenarios that only require a GUI for home use and small business use while there are others that may require network-based functionality (such as ltsp). |
| Fettoosh May 21, 2013 10:31 AM EDT |
Quoting:I didn't claim that X11 should be used on a smartphone, Actually you didn't, but you did insinuate it in the statement below. Quoting:Nonsense, the average current smartphone has more RAM and CPU capacity and GPU power than a desktop PC 8 years ago, which had no problems running X11. Quoting:but why repeat the mistake Microsoft made with Win8 by trying to use the same interface for handheld devices and desktops? I totally agree with you on that, but KDE doesn't do that. KDE still and will continue to have the classical GUI along with the new touch screen interface. They are making it seamless so that users can switch among multiple interfaces on the fly without rebooting or logout/login and depending on the device being used at the time. |
| linux4567 May 21, 2013 10:41 AM EDT |
> I think that's the real killer feature of X. No, Wayland does not support "network transparency" at all and the lack of this crucial feature is what kills Wayland for me. You would have to use something like VNC to run apps over the network. |
| Bob_Robertson May 21, 2013 11:11 AM EDT |
> Wayland does not support "network transparency" at all Ah, thank you. Very interesting. So much for making a smaller, simpler system, when one would need that AND another completely different application to do what the old single one did. Seems backwards. |
| Fettoosh May 21, 2013 11:13 AM EDT |
From Wayland QA hereQuoting:Is Wayland network transparent / does it support remote rendering? |
| Fettoosh May 21, 2013 11:21 AM EDT |
This also might be of interest to some KWin running in Weston Edited: More info related to RDP Must see : The Real Story Behind Wayland and X |
| Fettoosh May 21, 2013 11:41 AM EDT |
For those who don't want to read the whole AQ, which I consider to be very informative and helpful to stop some of the mis-information out there, here is another snippet to clarify more issues.Quoting:Is wayland replacing the X server? In other words, since most computer usage for most users is local and not on remote server, Wayland offers a more practical solution. It optimizes usage for local usage and keeps X11 available for remote usage by co-exiting with it and even extending it. I consider that to be best of both words. If that doesn't convince someone, nothing else will. |
| linux4567 May 21, 2013 11:55 AM EDT |
> In other words, since most computer usage for most users is local and not on remote server,
> Wayland offers a more practical solution. That is certainly the case on Windows but I would guess the percentage of Linux users who are used to running GUI apps from a remote machine they ssh'ed into is quite large. > Wayland offers a more practical solution. Having to run both X11 and Wayland is certainly not what I call optimisation... Like I said earlier Wayland should be relegated to handheld devices, while X11 should continue to be used on desktops. Why try to push Wayland on desktops when you still have to run X11 together with it anyway? |
| Fettoosh May 21, 2013 12:26 PM EDT |
I highly recommend watching this Must See presentation linked below: The Real Story Behind Wayland and X |
| skelband May 21, 2013 12:48 PM EDT |
> Like I said earlier Wayland should be relegated to handheld devices, while X11 should continue to be used on desktops. Why try to push Wayland on desktops when you still have to run X11 together with it anyway? You don't. The point is that X11 is way too heavy for the vast majority of "desktop" usage as it is now. In the server world obviously ssh-ing is important. Something lighter that incorporates compositing is a better fit for the multimedia world. Since it co-operates with an optional X11 then you can do that as well. Being able to ssh into an X11 session is a cool feature, but for the vast majority of people it is hardly a killer must have feature. Admittedly it was a must-have when we were all using X Terminals. For most applications, particularly those using toolkits for their visual presentation, the choice of Wayland or X11 as the renderer will be pretty much moot. I'm personally looking forward to see how Wayland shapes up. |
| linux4567 May 21, 2013 1:11 PM EDT |
> The point is that X11 is way too heavy for the vast majority of "desktop" usage as it is now. Huh? With todays' desktop cpus X11 takes up next to no cpu power! I think you misunderstood something because 'X11 being to heavy for a desktop' is neither true nor what the Wayland supporter say. |
| skelband May 21, 2013 1:20 PM EDT |
The "heavyness" is not in CPU power, it is the rings you have to run around just to get compositing and fast graphics. Superficially, support for GLX and compositing is done through a modular add-on architecture. In practice it is an absolute mess, evidenced by the perpetual compatibility problems associated with compositing interfering with applications trying to do graphical work. No, X11 is well past its sell-by date. At one time, the core network aspect of X11 was principally important. These days, it is a handy add on for server administrators. The primary focus has moved to thick clients and it is no longer a very good fit. |
| Fettoosh May 21, 2013 1:27 PM EDT |
Quoting:So much for making a smaller, simpler system, when one would need that AND another completely different application to do what the old single one did. @Bob_R, Keep in mind that Wayland follows the good old Unix philosophy as stated in Wikipedia Emphasis in quotes are mine. Quoting:The Unix philosophy, originated by Ken Thompson, is a set of cultural norms and philosophical approaches to developing small yet capable software based on the experience of leading developers of the Unix operating system. The Unix philosophy emphasizes building short, simple, clear, modular, and extendable code that can be easily maintained and repurposed by developers other than its creators. And Quoting:Doug McIlroy, then head of the Bell Labs CSRC and contributor to Unix pipes,[1] summarised Unix philosophy as follows:[2] |
| Bob_Robertson May 21, 2013 1:36 PM EDT |
It doesn't matter to me if composting and GLX is the modular part, or network invisibility is the modular part, or both in a structure which loads modules as they're needed (where have I heard that before?). What matters to me is the seeming relentless drive to dump the UNIX environment that has worked so well. I have no doubt that X11 is ancient and crusty and deserves to be replaced. Neither do I run the 2.4 Linux kernel any more. Network invisibility may seem irrelevant to someone who just wants a drop-in Microsoft replacement. That is not how I use my systems. Is it, really, how you use yours? |
| skelband May 21, 2013 2:01 PM EDT |
> What matters to me is the seeming relentless drive to dump the UNIX environment that has worked so well. 1) X11 is not a key part of the UNIX system and it never was. 2) The philosophy behind Wayland is not like systemd in any respect. It is effectively a reversal of the principal architecture of X11. X11 puts the network first. Wayland puts the compositor requirement first. In praise of the developers of Wayland, they have decided on a very narrow remit for Wayland. They will not encroach beyond the core remit of Wayland which is to achieve a specific narrow goal, to provide a compositing and rendering core for Linux systems. Network and X11 support will be available but they will be separate agents and not part of Wayland. In some ways, X11 as implemented on most distributions is a convoluted mixture of various components squeezed together in an unholy alliance. In a sense the scope of X11 with its oft accompanying modules has grown beyond the core remit of a network protocol. The simple reason that it has got so crufty is exactly the reason that it has not stayed strong to the "do something simple, do it really well" idea. It has become uncomfortable within the environment that it is commonly used for. I don't doubt that a large number of people use the X11 protocol for remote desktop-ing. The problem is that the "putting the network first and foremost" is not necessary the best fit for all the common use cases for desktop Linux now. And as for running X11 and Wayland together as separate co-operating processes: what's so wrong with that? One is a compositor and one is a network component. Isn't that how we do things in Linux/Unix? It's certainly sounds a more pure architecture than the monolithic beast with "patches" that the typical X11 installation has become. |
| Fettoosh May 21, 2013 2:16 PM EDT |
Quoting:What matters to me is the seeming relentless drive to dump the UNIX environment that has worked so well. They way I see it, part of the idea behind Wayland is to prevent Unix/Linux from being dumped all together just because of its "ancient and crusty" windowing rendering system. :-) |
| linux4567 May 21, 2013 2:27 PM EDT |
> What matters to me is the seeming relentless drive to dump the UNIX environment that has worked so well. Exactly my point. For once I 100% agree with Bob_Robertson. I have nothing against evolution, or even redesigning something from scratch, as long as the new implementation doesn't ditch crucial features that are still well used. You are right, it seems these days a new generation of young programmers that grew up on Windows have taken over who don't have any clue about all the nice features that Linux inherited from Unix and how much these features are key to why Linux is superior to Windows. All they want is to make Linux more WIndows like... :-( |
| linux4567 May 21, 2013 2:31 PM EDT |
> the idea behind Wayland is to prevent Unix/Linux from being dumped all together just because of its "ancient and crusty" That's just nonsense, Linux is currently running on more devices than ever before, nobody is dumping it and there is no real reason why Wayland would change this either way. If anything Wayland will contribute to divide the Linux desktop even more and hence make it less attractive. |
| linux4567 May 21, 2013 2:32 PM EDT |
> 1) X11 is not a key part of the UNIX system and it never was. Huh? Of course it is, not for servers but it's THE Unix standard for any desktop system and GUI application > X11 puts the network first network transparency is KEY to every aspect of Unix, Unix was conceived from the very beginning as networked operating system, that's why Unix and Linux had such a headstart on Windows when the Internet became popular > And as for running X11 and Wayland together as separate co-operating processes: what's so wrong with that? One is a compositor and one is a network component. Isn't that how we do things in Linux/Unix? But as far as I understand that doesn't help at all, the presence of X11 next to Wayland is only meant to support 'legacy' X11 applications, all new Wayland applications (including desktop enviroments for Wayland) will not work over the network. |
| Fettoosh May 21, 2013 3:50 PM EDT |
X11 being Network Transparent has nothing to do with network capabilities of Linux/Unix, which no one here is questioning. X11 was used because there was nothing else at the time. When Wayland is ready, you will see a mass migration from X11 to Wayland. Heck, most popular DE already supporting it. Quoting:Linux is currently running on more devices than ever before, nobody is dumping it and there is no real reason why Wayland would change this either way. All the devices you speak of don't run X11, they run a tailored GUI like Android using WallpaperService Engine or something else the vendor of certain device developed. Ubuntu is starting its own Mir. I wonder why, have you wondered why? It is obvious that the very informative material I supplied links to either didn't help or you didn't read. Either way, it seems useless to continue debating this issue with you while you keep confusing things. |
| linux4567 May 21, 2013 4:10 PM EDT |
> while you keep confusing things. I'm afraid that's exactly what YOU are doing especially if you say nonsense like this: > X11 being Network Transparent has nothing to do with network capabilities of Linux/Unix, which no one here is questioning. Everything in Unix is build around the network, so the fact that X11 is and has been network-centric since the beginning is only a logical consequence of that. > All the devices you speak of don't run X11, they run a tailored GUI like Android using WallpaperService Engine or something else the vendor of certain device developed. And there is nothing wrong with that, "horses for courses" as the saying goes. What's wrong is trying to impose a technology suited for handheld devices onto the desktop. I did read several of the links mentioned in this discussion, but most of the info presented there told me nothing I didn't already know. It only confirmed my concerns about the direction this is going. > X11 was used because there was nothing else at the time. When Wayland is ready, you will see a mass migration from X11 to Wayland. Heck, most popular DE already supporting it. That's exactly what I'm concerned about as that will only further divide and cripple the Linux desktop. |
| skelband May 21, 2013 4:33 PM EDT |
> Everything in Unix is build around the network, so the fact that X11 is and has been network-centric since the beginning is only a logical consequence of that. Everything in Unix is *socket* oriented. That networks also use sockets in Unix is a logical consequence of that. I have to ask though: if Wayland were to be widely adopted with an X protocol client, what do you fear that you would not be able to do, which you do now as a consequence? |
| Bob_Robertson May 21, 2013 4:41 PM EDT |
So Wayland is modular and extendable, and merely puts the composter in the center instead of the 'side'. Ok. So take the network transparency function, make a module. Just as modern systems are so resource-heavy that the present X is _able_ to work, then the network transparency will work just fine as a module. Done well, the switch from X11 to Wayland will be invisible, because the same functionality will exist in the new as existed in the old. Try to swap them without that functionality, and I'll be miffed. And you don't want me miffed. Grumble grumble. P.S. 4567, Indeed we do agree on the principles involved. I'm very glad to see it regardless of other disagreements. I have no "party loyalty" which means I can't be glad to work with someone where we agree just because we have some points of disagreement elsewhere. I've met such people with their "party loyalty", and they are pathetic. |
| linux4567 May 21, 2013 4:52 PM EDT |
>So take the network transparency function, make a module. Just as modern systems are so resource-heavy that the present X is _able_ to work, then the network transparency will work just fine as a module. As far as I understand Wayland, that doesn't seem to be possible because Wayland lets the clients do the rendering directly. Correct me if I'm wrong as I don't yet fully understand this part of Wayland. @Bob_Robertson: I have no "party loyalty" either, I think for myself and agree or disagree with people on each subject individually based on my thoughts, research and conclusions about the specific subject, not because of affiliations. > what do you fear that you would not be able to do, which you do now as a consequence? I'm not quite sure I understand your question, I already said network transparency is very important to me, as I make use of it all the time both privately and professionally. |
| Fettoosh May 21, 2013 5:15 PM EDT |
I see we are not making progress and I can't come up with a better convincing arguments than This Video So I suggest you watch it fully again and this time make sure till the end since that is where the important points are. Useful info about where X was started and it wasn't on Unix/Linux. Wikipedia: X Window System Quoting: Origin and early development [edit] The original idea of X emerged at MIT in 1984 as a collaboration between Jim Gettys (of Project Athena) and Bob Scheifler (of the MIT Laboratory for Computer Science). Scheifler needed a usable display environment for debugging the Argus system. Project Athena (a joint project between Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC), MIT and IBM to provide easy access to computing resources for all students) needed a platform-independent graphics system to link together its heterogeneous multiple-vendor systems; the window system then under development in Carnegie Mellon University's Andrew Project did not make licenses available, and no alternatives existed. |
| linux4567 May 21, 2013 5:18 PM EDT |
That's a 45min video, I wish I had that much spare time... |
| Fettoosh May 21, 2013 5:25 PM EDT |
You can skip the beginning. |
| skelband May 21, 2013 5:40 PM EDT |
> As far as I understand Wayland, that doesn't seem to be possible because Wayland lets the clients do the rendering directly. Correct me if I'm wrong as I don't yet fully understand this part of Wayland. One of the biggest bugbears about X is that the simple render is hardly used by anyone at all these because it's so useless. Everyone uses XRender instead which, if I understand correctly, means that you draw your own stuff anyway. Even if this wasn't the case, most apps these days use toolkits which should insulate the apps from the backend implementation. |
| skelband May 21, 2013 5:44 PM EDT |
Some interesting comment on the state of X: http://people.freedesktop.org/~daniels/lca2013-wayland-x11.p... The pdf is a bit annoying: I just scroll rapidly through it. |
| skelband May 21, 2013 5:50 PM EDT |
> I'm not quite sure I understand your question, I already said network transparency is very important to me, as I make use of it all the time both privately and professionally. Just curious: in what way do you use network transparency? Are you running a thin client to an X-"hosted" app (e.g. ssh) or a 'thick' app connected to an X-"hosted" renderer? |
| linux4567 May 21, 2013 6:01 PM EDT |
> Just curious: in what way do you use network transparency? I ssh into remote machines and then lauch GUI apps that run on those remote machines but display their GUI on my desktop. This is quite common practice (ok maybe not for those people who only have a single PC at home, but for lots of people with multiple PC setups and in work environments). |
| Bob_Robertson May 22, 2013 8:50 AM EDT |
> I ssh into remote machines and then lauch GUI apps that run on those remote machines but display their GUI on my desktop. Exactly. The network agnosticism allows anything that can be reached through an SSH session to open a GUI application to display on my local machine. This traverses NAT, firewalls, etc, and is an excellent example of stacking relatively simple applications to achieve very complex results. I'm not wedded to any code-base or application. I neither code for nor compile the GUI, I don't care if it's called Wayland, X, or Cheese. What I have seen is functionality that has been established through 30 years of people USING it, and any replacement SHOULD begin by implementing that same basic functionality, first. For example, the change from Xfree86 to Xorg. I wasn't involved in how it was done, by fork or re-write or whatever. What I saw was that Xorg "picked up where Xfree86 left off". I consider that a good example. If Wayland is better, and I have no reason to doubt it can be, then great. Wayland should start where X is now. Maybe it will be Wayland with an X "plug in", this "coexist side by side" thing. Sure. Whatever it takes. |
| Fettoosh May 22, 2013 11:23 AM EDT |
@Bob_R, Rome wasn't built in a day I believe that Wayland developers are trying to get all of X11 functionality in as quickly as possible by making Wayland & X11 coexist. I am pretty sure they will rip X11 apart eventually and either merge functions in Wayland/Weston or just make a miniaturized (Throw away useless code) X11 to coexist better. I believe the 2nd option will win because the developers are being very keen and careful about keeping Wayland as small as possible for better performance, maintainability and extensibility. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!