Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

GNOME Aiming For Full Wayland Support by Spring 2014

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the ten-little-kingdoms dept.

GNOME 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."

cancel ×

300 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It's ironic... (4, Insightful)

wertigon (1204486) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159071)

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... (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159123)

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:It's ironic... (2, Informative)

ranulf (182665) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159263)

So, you want X11 then? *sigh*

Re:It's ironic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159329)

So you want remote desktop then? *sigh*

Re:It's ironic... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159349)

That would also ensure compatibility with X11. Nice...

Re:It's ironic... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159495)

If X11 weren't completely unusable on anything but than the fastest of networks ... then yeah.

Re:It's ironic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159557)

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.

Re:It's ironic... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159979)

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:It's ironic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43160199)

You should have your hearing checked.

I DEMAND THE RIGHT TO USE APPS THAT ARE RUNNING ON SERVERS, MY DESKTOP (computer), LAPTOP, TABLET, AND PHONE, ON MY DESKTOP (computer), LAPTOP, TABLET, AND PHONE.

AND FUCK ALL OF YOU WHO THINK THAT THE DESKTOP (masturbatory graphics) IS EVEN RELEVANT.

Re:It's ironic... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43160209)

And this is what I hear when I listen to Wayland zealots:

I want Linux to be a single display system like Windows 98, where we had to use VNC if we wanted to even pretend to remote anything. That way, Linux will finally be on par with Windows, and nobody can argue that Linux is better.

Re:It's ironic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43160309)

Meanwhile RDP is far more widely deployed than X in the real world. So perhaps you retrogressive unixtards should stop pretending that it's still 1998 and X is some sort of killer feature.

Re:It's ironic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43160419)

You are correct. It's not a killer feature. It's a kind of boring basic feature that just is mandatory to support for server environments using *nix or GTFO any corporate environment.

It doesn't matter at all what produces the same feature. It may as well be Mir, as long as it does supports root windowless mode, and supports some authentication & authorization mechanisms.

Re:It's ironic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159567)

Post claims to be from 2013, content is obviously from 1995.

I agree, you do need a faster network.

Re:It's ironic... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159885)

I agree, you do need a faster network.

Yeah, well ... Time Warner is the bottleneck, and there isn't much that can be done about that without moving to Kansas to get Google fiber.

Not really true! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159571)

If X11 weren't completely unusable on anything but than the fastest of networks ... then yeah.

There are compression proxies for the X protocol. NX for instance does this. After that it will work much better over networks. Most of the thin client setups use something similar, and they really do work.

The real problem is that Xorg doesn't have one in the default distribution. Negotiating for support shouldn't be much of a problem in many environments, no need to use it, but including one would really have improved the state of network transparency.

Without networking features, especially in root windowless mode, no corporate environments will use Mir.

Re:Not really true! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159929)

NX rocks. But until it is on the servers that I use, it doesn't exist.

Re:It's ironic... (4, Informative)

avaric (1259642) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159905)

I've used both X forwarding over SSH and RemoteDesktop to an XRDP server to work remotely, quite often. I've found the differences interesting. . . In general, the RemoteDesktop connection is faster. Significantly. To the point that I use it routinely now that it's available to me. But I've noticed that when it comes to doing something like simple text scrolling, it's actually slower than the X fowarding I did prior (in an xterm or equivalent), probably because it's thinking of the window as an image instead of simply being able to send the text update. It's annoying when trying to scroll through huge text log files, so for me, X wins there. . .

Re:It's ironic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159907)

I've used X11 over the internet between comcast cable (at home) and verizon business DSL at work. I found it fairly usable.

Re:It's ironic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43160269)

Where "the fastest of networds" is the 10 Mbit connections that X was designed for.

Last weekend I was away from home, and used X forwarding to check mails remotely. Worked fine for a remote connection (definitely better than VNC, which I've seen suggested using for Wayland), and my home machine sits on a 10/1 ADSL connection. That's 1 Mbit in the mail program to screen direction.

X11? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159601)

Yes, please!

Re:It's ironic... (4, Interesting)

caseih (160668) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159693)

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:It's ironic... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159889)

Yet weirdly... all those "hacks" in the Windows world work perfectly well for remote desktops... meanwhile they haven't carried around the baggage of shitty design decisions made in the name of remote protocols like.. say... X11. The baggage in this case being atrocious performance in 99.99% of use cases, extreme code complexity and brittleness... and making any improvements a 10 year slog instead of a 6 months rewrite.

You fucking remote desktop morons really get to me more than any other zealot. You are just *SO* fucking wrong and your claims are totally at odds with reality. You are the fucking creationists of the software world. I really wish you'd die - then the Linux desktop might have a chance.

Re:It's ironic... (1)

Derek Pomery (2028) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159911)

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... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43160397)

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.

This is 100% a licensing issue. Microsoft does not want people deploying thin clients and dumping their PCs.

The technology is actually quite good and performance is objectively superior to the outdated X11 protocol. However MS doesn't want people using it, so they've made it extremely difficult to activate.

Re:It's ironic... (3, Informative)

DrXym (126579) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159735)

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.

Re:It's ironic... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159877)

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:It's ironic... (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43160457)

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 many pro-Wayland arguments it is again deceptive. Sure there are a few more hops, but this is via unix domain sockets using the Linux kernel. The response time is doubled from a few tens of microseconds to a few more tens of microseconds. It's utterly irrelevant in terms of UX.

AND high local 3D rendering is done through DRI anyway, so no extra latency there either.

Re:It's ironic... (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159739)

I want all the features provided by X11. It doesn't have to be X. Just don't take any features away.

Re:It's ironic... (5, Informative)

squiggleslash (241428) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159785)

Can't speak for the GP, but in my case, yes.

Yes, by all means spam me now with all the arguments that claim that X11 is terrible because it's imperfect. I'm well aware it's imperfect.

But the fact is it's not imperfect enough to warrant throwing it out and replacing it with something that lacks the more awesome things X11 does. Yes, I know the counter argument here too: "Nobody uses/needs/wants the awesome things!" says Baby Bathwater. But look at what you're proposing: a tiny, inconsequential, performance improvement and possibly cleaner API, in exchange for guaranteed incompatabilities and the removal of functionality.

So, pretty please, knock it off with the Wayland/Mir shit, at least until you achieve feature parity.

Re:It's ironic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159309)

Why does network transparency have to be a function of the display system? I'd prefer if there was a standard to allow for hooks that worked with multiple implementations of network transparency.

Re:It's ironic... (4, Informative)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159359)

Why does network transparency have to be a function of the display system?

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... (5, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159871)

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... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159373)

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.

I can't adequately express how sick I am of hearing people demand such a niche feature.

Re:It's ironic... (4, Informative)

ranulf (182665) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159429)

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... (3, Insightful)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159501)

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:It's ironic... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159591)

No one cares what you do. I'm saying that you are in a niche of people who do what you do and display server architecture should not be catered to you.

Re:It's ironic... (2)

DrXym (126579) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159777)

You could be doing those things over wayland. I can run X11 over Windows or OS X. I assume exactly the same will be possible over Wayland. Not to mention network transports for Wayland at some point - if a window is just as a surface, there is no reason the surface can't be coming from over the network from somewhere else.

Re:It's ironic... (3, Interesting)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43160045)

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... (0)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about a year and a half ago | (#43160265)

Why can't you have a wayland desktop and an X11 desktop on different terminals?

Re:It's ironic... (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about a year and a half ago | (#43160343)

Most people refuse to read man pages and will never learn how to use remote applications and because of that basic cluelessness, they are unable to grasp what they are missing.

Re:It's ironic... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159535)

Millions? In a world with readily available and less complicated solutions like Remote Desktop, VNC and Teamviewer, you seriously think millions of people use X11's network transparency?

You're delusional.

Re:It's ironic... (4, Funny)

Entropius (188861) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159589)

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:It's ironic... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159851)

And you wouldn't consider Computational Physics to be a niche...?

Re:It's ironic... (1)

malkavian (9512) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159689)

Why do so many people pay for Citrix, and VDI?

Re:It's ironic... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159753)

Because of smooth sales pitches and PHB's?

Re:It's ironic... (4, Informative)

Junta (36770) | about a year and a half ago | (#43160189)

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:It's ironic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43160333)

So you find the idea of loading a whole remote desktop instead of just the remote application, despite the benefits in performance over X11 and improved maintainability of the whole display server architecture, to be "infuriating"?

You need to get some perspective.

Re:It's ironic... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159811)

Just because you use it doesn't mean it isn't a niche feature.

Re:It's ironic... (2)

csubi (950112) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159935)

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:It's ironic... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159825)

You are the reason that linux has failed on the desktop. You, yes you who insist on holding on to some utterly bizzare shit that makes no sense outside of a very tiny use case.

Look at android. Andriod is linux stripped of things that are nice for you, but completely useless for everyone else. Your use case is literally smaller than a rounding error. Andriod was able to shed it's legacy baggage and it's taking the world by storm.

You are bitching and holding everyone up so you can have "generally much better" remote apps on your personal lan.

Mir and Wayland are the way forward. X is obsolete. Deal with it.

We need switchable graphics back ends (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43160147)

You need network graphics, others don't.

This is a clear case where the graphics system needs to be switchable between networked and non-networked graphics back ends, since you can't expect those who don't use network graphics to have to endure the X11 overheads just because you need that function.

Re:It's ironic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43160321)

Emacs with Tramp is easier to use for most purposes.

Re:It's ironic... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159503)

So you claim you've been hearing many people demand a feature you consider niche? ... I'm no longer sure I fully grasp the meaning of "niche"...

Re:It's ironic... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159747)

So you claim you've been hearing many people demand a feature you consider niche? ... I'm no longer sure I fully grasp the meaning of "niche"...

You make a good point; I should clarify. I'm sick of hearing the loud people on technically-oriented sites (such as this one, and phoronix) demand that the display servers that EVERYONE needs to use be designed around their particular use case.

Re:It's ironic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159631)

And yet you started typing, completed a capture AND hit submit.

From where you sit its niche, you may not always sit where you are and many others already don't.

People aren't demanding a feature in someone elses code base, their suggesting not move a distribution away from one that already has that feature.

Re:It's ironic... (1)

Bill Hayden (649193) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159675)

Sorry bud, but all our developers use this "niche" all day every day. It's a fundamental requirement of a display manager.

Re:It's ironic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159791)

VNC works flawlessly over a LAN environment. It works pretty well over modern broadband. It even works over 3G, let alone LTE. X11 may be sharper, but it is equally sluggish over 3G (and worse) connections.

Re:It's ironic... (1)

Junta (36770) | about a year and a half ago | (#43160217)

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... (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159805)

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.

Lots of people demanding what nobody wants? (0)

raymorris (2726007) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159823)

I can't adequately express how sick I am of hearing people demand such a niche feature.

You keep hearing all of these people demanding it, so you think it's a "niche feature" nobody uses. Think about that for a minute. You hear everyone say they use it ...

I'm going to assume for a moment that you're intelligent and you can look at this with some simple logic. If you keep hearing everybody say how important it is, and YOU don't know why it's so useful, which is most likely:
a) all of the people using it don't know what they are using or why
b) the guy who does not use it doesn't know what he's missing

If you stop arguing for just a minute and ask "what benefits do all of these people get from this capability?" you might have a cool new tool in your kit.

Re:Lots of people demanding what nobody wants? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159995)

I'll preface this by reiterating a response I made to a similar comment further above:

You make a good point; I should clarify. I'm sick of hearing the loud people on technically-oriented sites (such as this one, and phoronix) demand that the display servers that EVERYONE needs to use be designed around their particular use case.

That being said, in response to your statement that I don't know what I'm missing: I have used it. I know what it does. I also know that RDP, Teamviewer, VNC etc. fill the same use case and are a lot simpler. THOSE are what EVERYONE uses. Only in-depth linux geeks even know network transparency exists, let alone use it.

Re:Lots of people demanding what nobody wants? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43160323)

I feel sorry for the state of Linux if this is the case. I've trained admins who are afraid of CLI to remote X via ssh on a server management net. This is nice because we can install X server on their windows machines without having to configure X server on the server. We are transferring X data which is cached locally and reused - which is different than the bitmap transferrers which vnc and rdp depend on.

Its a matter of taste and simplicity. If event transfers are so broken, they are free to engineer local sockets if input lags over a loopback interface.

Re:It's ironic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159875)

Bingo! Network transparency was a mistake the first day it ever went into X. Network code never belonged in the display stack and no amount of talking will ever make it belong there.

Re:It's ironic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43160113)

Not a niche feature. Ask almost any professional sysadmin. I use X11 forwarding over SSH ALL THE TIME when I have do deal with crap that only does configuration or settings in X. It's a lot more common than you'd think. I also use it for applications I have on my home desktop that I don't have at work as a fail safe.

Re:It's ironic... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159405)

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:It's ironic... (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159465)

Interestingly I had an issue with vnc yesterday.

the "window" borders of InDesign CS3 were not rendered, instead showing through.

this happened with any of the option I chose on VNC.

when connecting, they briefly displayed before immediately disappearing.

Re:It's ironic... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159597)

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.

Aww, look at the widdle Windows MSCE getting all butthurt over something he doesn't understand...

Re:It's ironic... (2)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159603)

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:It's ironic... (2, Insightful)

malkavian (9512) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159759)

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:It's ironic... (1)

bWareiWare.co.uk (660144) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159439)

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:It's ironic... (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159609)

Of course your videocard is then connected to your monitor by an uncompressed 3.4Gb connection.

Re:It's ironic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43160055)

DisplayPort 1.0 is 8.64gbps, 1.2 is 17.28gbps. This isn't new tech, I haven't used anything but DisplayPort for 4 and a half years.

On top of that, new standards like embedded DisplayPort 1.4 (eDP) do use lossless compression to keep utilized transfer rates down.

Even 10gigE isn't going to be transparent, or remotely close with overhead. Most people are using gigE at best for X11.

Re:It's ironic... (1)

Junta (36770) | about a year and a half ago | (#43160429)

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 isn't an unreasonable goal.

We don't need it to be X specifically or support all the Xlib drawing primitives that are never used. Ideally we have some ability for application content to be efficiently described in a way that trivially translates to a local framebuffer or a remote renderer or nothing at all (e.g. detached while no one is looking). RDP and SPICE show what's possible with more sophisticated primitives and detached rendering, but fail to deliver on the per application scenario with 'client' managed decoration, management, and composition.

Re:It's ironic... (3, Insightful)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159479)

True, though server side decorations are a must, too.

Re:It's ironic... (4, Insightful)

caseih (160668) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159533)

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:It's ironic... (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159607)

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:It's ironic... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159927)

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.

That is no longer an issue with Windows Vista and prior releases of Windows. Time to update your trolling playbook.

Re:It's ironic... (1)

ssam (2723487) | about a year and a half ago | (#43160121)

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 to use use it for playing music. I had rhythmbox installed on a mini-itx connected to hifi, displaying over ssh on my laptop. it worked but the interface was slow. then i discovered MPD)

VNCing a whole session is just silly, as i spend most of the time on the commandline. also VNC means i have to start a VNC server at one end, and then a VNC client at my end.

but if VNC (or some other protocol, maybe NX) was as easy to use (given that I am already SSHing into the machine) then i would happily switch. if it also worked well with GNU screen, then I would be super happy.

Alternatives to X11 are very welcome (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159765)

It's been pretty hard to evolve open source display systems beyond X11 because of the immense investment in that old technology. With two contenders in Wayland and Mir, we may finally be getting the strong push needed to overcome X11 inertia.

The fact that X11 is "old" is not the issue at all (old usually means stable), but unfortunately X11 has some very severe design problems that the X11 devs have no desire to fix. One very high profile problem is that when the X11 server dies, so do all X11 applications, which is extremely bad engineering. A consequence of this is that you can't upgrade any core component of a running X11 system without killing off your entire set of running graphics applications.

Hopefully Wayland and Mir will shake up the Linux and BSD desktop graphics community a bit, enough to encourage some good infrastructure redesign leading to significantly better and more robust engineering. We can hope.

X11 was good for its time, but it's 2013 and in some areas we need better functionality.

Re:Alternatives to X11 are very welcome (1)

DrXym (126579) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159843)

I think it's less about the server crashing and more about the fact that modern apps and widgets do their level best to bypass as much of X as possible. They use free type for fonts, cairo for drawing bitmaps, QT / GTK for their widgets, GPU surfaces for windows, extensions for compositing and damage. X is basically this thing which routes keyboard & mouse inputs in one direction and has some hooks to tell the compositor to repaint in the other. The rest is just a bunch of dead code and restrictions getting in the way and slowing everything down.

Re:It's ironic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159891)

Both are open source and will be solid by the time they come out

Ahahahahaha

HAAHHAHHHAHAHAHAAH

ahaha

hah

Re:It's ironic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43160305)

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.

Don't you rather mean "inoperable"?

Re:It's ironic... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43160395)

AS10B73 [laptop-power-battery.com]

And then (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159073)

*crickets*

Second line.

Weyland Industries (1)

satsuke (263225) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159109)

Why does this sound like Weyland-Yutani?

Perhaps the company had humble roots as a Linux graphical toolkit developer instead of heavy industry.

Re:Weyland Industries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159175)

Why does this sound like Weyland-Yutani?

Because Slashdot is riddled with stupid comments which are lame attempts at humor. Instead of wasting your time and my time, you could have posted a fisting troll and at least given me a good chuckle to start my day.

Booooooooo! You suck! Boooooooooo!

-- Ethanol-fueled

Go away (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159125)

The Gnome project should get back under the bridge it came from.

Re:Go away (2)

Extremus (1043274) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159205)

Haha! Funny country is that of yours. In mine, the gnomes come from gardens and other magical places.

Re:Go away (2)

wertigon (1204486) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159211)

Nono... That's TROLLS!

Gnomes are small cute persons. They're even smaller than halflings.

Sheeesh, kids these days...

Car analogy (1)

rudolfel (700883) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159213)

If the car is not working, change the road

Well. (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159335)

Hello, LXDE....

Gnome Devs are pathetic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159381)

Yet another knee-jerk reaction from Red Hat to counter a Canonical's initiative. Even after hiring almost every Gnome developer of note Red Hat is basically reacting to whatever Canonical is doing. Red Hat has become the Microsoft of open source. I'd rather have "fragmentation" in the Linux ecosystem than its hegemonic dominance by a company that purposely directs its developers to sabotage projects to raise barriers to new contributors and drags their feet to maintain the status quo.

Re:Gnome Devs are pathetic (1)

happy_place (632005) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159943)

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't have to continually be redeveloping expertise in it just to build a stupid gui window...

Re:Gnome Devs are pathetic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43160383)

As OP said, fragmentation is better than a single company controlling key OS components. We've seen this behaviour before and it will be the death of what is a vibrant linux ecosystem. . Big corporations seek to preserve their dominant status and bottom lines and raise barriers to new market contributors and Red Hat is no different.

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159493)

Canonical were the only reason anyone was even thinking about opting in on the Wayland bandwagon, and they're going with an in-house solution now. If Ubuntu (the official distribution for questionable design decisions) isn't even going to bother with it, why should anyone else?

One More Reason (1, Interesting)

hduff (570443) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159511)

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:One More Reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159799)

what do you mean 'has become'? O.o

Re:One More Reason (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43160029)

Are you kidding? Linux culture IS based on negativity and we-know-better-than-you.

Gnometards are afraid and rightly so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43159681)

Man I hate Ubuntu,but I really hope they make Gnome finally irrelevant for all linux users.
Save Inkscape and Gimp, drop the rest.

If MIR gets Wayland moving it was worth it (1)

CajunArson (465943) | about a year and a half ago | (#43160129)

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 Wayland development, then Mir is a success and a positive contribution to the open source world.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>