Lets all jump up and down for more fragmentation!
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Jeff91 Aug 13, 2011 2:06 PM EDT |
Don't get me wrong, choice is good. But wayland is only going to fragment things without a whole lot of gain. For instance - there is already talk that it will support running X for X applications within it. Then why not just use X? Plus odds are Nvidia and ATI will never support a new display server with their closed source drivers. Meaning you will have piles of people right there that will be fighting to roll back to X in any distro that ops to use wayland by default. Plus wayland is barely functional at the moment. With all the work it will take to make it work, wouldn't it just be better to apply fixes to X for the things we don't like? ~Jeff |
| hkwint Aug 13, 2011 2:37 PM EDT |
Quoting:wouldn't it just be better to apply fixes to X for the things we don't like? That would require removing all the legacy-bloat from X. Indeed, removing unused bloat is always better. Will you tell the people at Xorg to do so? |
| Fettoosh Aug 13, 2011 4:44 PM EDT |
We know X-server is a network based system that manages computer display on local & remote computers in a distributed network. What I have read and understand about Wayland is that, it is a local computer display manager. X-Server has a bigger footprint and consequently, its overhead is higher than Wayland and presumably, that might make Wayland manage windows faster on a local display than X-server can. This could be true but we really don't know for sure yet since it is not totally ready to replace X-server or do what X-server can. I believe the main reason Wayland is being aggressively promoted at this time is its suitability for the Cloud. Welcome to the cloud, it already started impacting the IT technology in various ways. The Cloud is designed to mostly be accessed via browsers and from very light weight devices (Netbooks, Tablets, mobile Phones, etc). These devices can handle browsers very effectively but can't run X-servers at all or not even adequately. As long as such devices can handle browsers and TCP/IP, the Cloud can be accessed with ease and no need for the X-server's overhead. The Cloud "pushers" assume that most users won't need X-server, or at least they want everyone thing that is the case. In the enterprise and some small companies, the X-server is needed and used, but let's face it, how many home users need X-server? Now for the desktop users, at home and at the office, how many do really need or use X-servers? And if Wayland is more efficient and faster than X-server in handling & managing windows on local displays, and can be made to utilize X-server to do its unique networking functions, as claimed by its developers, why not pursue Wayland? The Client-Server concept existed and used effectively for a long time. MS pushed the independent or networked PC for revenue generating reasons. Now the Client-Server concept is making a come back in the form of the Cloud. It is here and it is going to be here in the future, we might as well work with it but make sure it doesn't take away what we prefer and want, or/and doesn't leave us behind. So why do we heave to fight it? It just might be for the best of all. Personally, I don't have a problem with that. |
| Jeff91 Aug 13, 2011 5:47 PM EDT |
I guess I just don't understand why all the hate directed towards X and the wanting to move away from it when we continue to use plenty of other technologies that are bloated compared to alternatives (See: QT). The sad part is we already have alternatives to QT developed and not many people use them. Wayland is still mostly an idea at this point and piles of people are jumping all over it. I guess I just don't understand the fascination with it. ~Jeff |
| Fettoosh Aug 13, 2011 6:04 PM EDT |
Quoting:guess I just don't understand the fascination with it. It is the Cloud my friend, it is the Cloud with all the potential revenue they are hoping to bring to them. |
| BernardSwiss Aug 13, 2011 6:53 PM EDT |
A question or two: In what sense, exactly, does (will) X have a bigger footprint? Does it require more RAM? More CPU? And how much is this really an issue of trading off NOT tying it directly into the kernel, like other OSs have been known to do, and some people would rather have speed than stability? Supplementary questions: does this hate really boil down to "I get better FPS (whether you understand "FPS" to mean Frames Per Second or First Person Shooter) on Windows". How much is this a DirectX thing? A game-dev preference/toolchain thing? For example I haven't heard anyone complain about X's supposedly horrible graphic performance on CAD or other intensive workstation tasks. I hear lots of whining, but I don't know whether it's well-grounded, or just another unstated assumptions thing like the whining about Linux "graphic-card drivers (not) having a stable ABI, like all the other (proprietary) operating systems". Enlighten me... |
| gus3 Aug 13, 2011 8:20 PM EDT |
@BernardSwiss: A general rule of thumb is, the more abstraction/virtualization you have, the more support code you need to use it. Suffice to say, X virtualizes the entire d@mn console. And then some, just to be sure it got the whole thing. Which makes its "footprint" look like André the Giant's. On the plus side, since so much of it is user-space, it benefits from the automatic slimming-down that comes with demand paging, i.e. unused code doesn't get loaded into core. |
| Fettoosh Aug 13, 2011 8:26 PM EDT |
Quoting:A question or two: Very Good Information here about Wayland architecture. http://wayland.freedesktop.org/architecture.html Good info here at Wayland FAQ: Wayland FAQ And here if you have time. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=xorg_wayl... |
| Jeff91 Aug 13, 2011 9:36 PM EDT |
I guess we will have to just wait and see how it all turns out. I already know I personally will never use Wayland on 3 out of my 4 computers as they use nVidia chipsets and nvidia has already said they will not be supporting wayland. Unless the open source drivers improve by around 1000% by some miracle. ~Jeff |
| BernardSwiss Aug 13, 2011 11:02 PM EDT |
Thanks, guys. That should give me a start... |
| hkwint Aug 14, 2011 12:59 PM EDT |
Bernard: Sadly, NO of the popular mechanical CAD-programs these days run on Linux anymore. Even on VirtualBox it has been horrible last time I tried. But that's not your real question, I think. The Wayland FAQ (linked to above) describes how the X server is full of requirements which were 'top of the bill' in 1980, but those requirements are used by nobody anymore in this decade. Compare it to Linux' archaic way of dealing with keyboards; from keyboard press to character on the screen: It's also very unwieldy, mostly because of the fact it supports 40-year old input systems, which don't make any sense anymore in todays world. The deeper you're in it, the more you understand how this whole pile stinks. I mean, if you want to fix the Eurosign on Linux, what's the point of having to fix it both in the terminal and Xorg separately, both in not-compatible ways? What' the use of an XFont server if it's almost depreciated? And so on. I'd say X is not bad or something, only thing is it's damn huge without reason. Many parts of it are almost never used. I'd say: Compile it a few times, look at what's being compiled and then find out what it actually does, and you'll see! That's not a problem on the "huge desktops" we have in our home. But it requires lots of time to maintain all that parts which are almost never used, and moreover, I think it doesn't scale that well to embedded devices. Wouldn't it be great to have some new 'thing' which works both on desktops and mobile systems, and is not concerned with supporting 2398 terminals and all kind of techniques which were used in the 80's? |
| BFM Aug 14, 2011 2:24 PM EDT |
The last time I looked at Wayland there were going to be X hooks designed in as a layer that would be available on demand. I believe that is still the case. So this is an exercise in adapting software to the limited resources available to smart phones and their other small cousins. As for the responders who imply that nobody uses Linux machines in client/server remote applications, I beg to differ. It is used all the time in technical computing and VPNs. So, no X is not going away any time soon. |
| krisum Aug 14, 2011 5:31 PM EDT |
> As for the responders who imply that nobody uses Linux machines in client/server remote applications, I beg to differ. It is used all the time in technical computing and VPNs. See the Wayland FAQ above: the better option will be to use something like VNC instead of X or X over Wayland for such uses. |
| Grishnakh Aug 14, 2011 6:39 PM EDT |
hkwint wrote:I'd say X is not bad or something, only thing is it's damn huge without reason. Many parts of it are almost never used. I'd say: Compile it a few times, look at what's being compiled and then find out what it actually does, and you'll see! I've never seen X used on an embedded device. All the embedded Linux systems I've seen use a framebuffer and have embedded Qt/Qtopia writing directly to the FB. |
| Grishnakh Aug 14, 2011 6:45 PM EDT |
Here's a couple of replies I got on Slashdot from a Wayland developer named "jmknsd" in response to my concerns about remote applications:jmknsd wrote:Hi, I'm working with the creator of wayland on a google summer of code project to enable remote clients with wayland. This Is fairly conceptually simple, I just forward the information that goes over the main wayland socket, preserving the wire protocol, and on another socket, I use a RFB like protocol to pass on creation and changes to the framebuffer. Later on, I'll need a third socket to pass Drag and Drop data, but that is still a ways off. Grishnakh wrote:Thanks for the reply. jmknsd wrote:I've only been working on this since May, and my understanding of the inner working of X is hazy, so I don't know how the finished product will work(right now I am working locally manually starting everything) or how ssh will play into it. But the effect is going to be the same; you will be able to run a client program running on a remote machine, while viewing it in the compositor running on your desktop. I hope this helps allay some of the fears that many people, quite understandably, have with Wayland. I just hope we don't go through some nasty transition period where the distros all switch to Wayland but the remote application ability isn't there yet, leaving us in a lurch. |
| BFM Aug 14, 2011 8:00 PM EDT |
@Krisum Check the link for VPN in the FAC you referenced. For graphics they use X. |
| hkwint Aug 15, 2011 4:04 AM EDT |
@Grisnakh:
Quoting:I've never seen X used on an embedded device. Uhm, yes, that was the point I tried to make I guess. Even the Xorg people themselves made TinyX, lightweight X which works pretty well in TinyCore without much of the overhead. Thanks for sharing the mailing list info with us! What I'd really like to see (and NX is working on), is a kind of 'in browser' remote desktop. Some kind of Javascript-application which works in any browser, to connect to your desktop. Wonder if such is possible with Wayland? |
| JaseP Aug 15, 2011 10:35 AM EDT |
Quoting: What I'd really like to see (and NX is working on), is a kind of 'in browser' remote desktop. Some kind of Javascript-application which works in any browser, to connect to your desktop. Wonder if such is possible with Wayland? Look at any similar app designed to run on Android, and there you go... Davlik is largely source compatible with Java... Wayland should be able to support Java it as long as the browser running on it does (and if Google Chrome is adopting Wayland, you can bet it will). PS: The "archaic" keyboard system in Linux is still there so that you can support headless systems. It's similar to the way Windoze still sports old DOS code in the nooks and crannies... |
| skelband Aug 15, 2011 11:43 AM EDT |
I was quite excited over the prospect of Wayland after looking over the overview of what they are trying to do.
X comes with a lot of baggage that most users do not need. Because of its structure, introducing compositing features (and I don't mean wobbly windows, just a more efficient use of the graphic card capabilities to do normal things like window blitting) and use of advanced graphics card features means X is inefficient and klunky to deal with. I don't see the hate against X that has been commented on here, just a realisation that most people would benefit from a much simplified graphical architecture, which leads to less bloat and an easier environment to take proper advantage of the hardware. I will be interested to see how it all end up. |
| Fettoosh Aug 15, 2011 11:57 AM EDT |
Quoting:What I'd really like to see (and NX is working on), is a kind of 'in browser' remote desktop. Some kind of Javascript-application which works in any browser, to connect to your desktop. Wonder if such is possible with Wayland? @Hans, is this what you are talking about but using Wayland? http://www.techworld.com.au/article/345260/need_desktop_acce... Quoting:From the article: I believe if Wayland is the display manager on a computer, a replacement for X11vnc can be written for Wayland. Quoting:Helpful comment in the feedback : Change brings marvelous things and exciting times. sometimes!, most of the time! |
| krisum Aug 16, 2011 6:31 PM EDT |
@BFM > Check the link for VPN in the FAC you referenced. For graphics they use X. No, read again. The option of using X over Wayland exists for uses such as "ssh -x". However, using a VNC server or xrdp will be better for many cases in VPNs or otherwise. |
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!