Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Wayland 1.1 Released — Now With Raspberry Pi Support

timothy posted about a year ago | from the delicious-support dept.

Graphics 197

An anonymous reader writes "Six months after the release of Wayland 1.0, versions 1.1 of Wayland and Weston have been released. Wayland/Weston 1.1 brings new back-end support for the Raspberry Pi, Pixman renderer, Microsoft Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP), and FBDEV frame-buffer device. Wayland/Weston 1.1 also introduces a modules SDK, supports the EGL buffer-age extension, touch-screen calibration support, and numerous optimizations and bug-fixes."

cancel ×

197 comments

remote desktop vs windows (1)

SkunkPussy (85271) | about a year ago | (#43462297)

Does it support a way to handle remote windows yet? Or does it still only support an entire desktop remoted?

Re:remote desktop vs windows (1)

SkunkPussy (85271) | about a year ago | (#43462303)

The use case I am thinking of is that I ssh into a machine, then run gvim to edit a file.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (4, Insightful)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about a year ago | (#43462391)

Or, ssh into a development server and run eclipse.

Or ssh into a new oracle host and launch the oracle installer

With Wayland soon we'll have to have full graphical installs on ever server rather than just the minimal xlib to support remote viewing of applications.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43462441)

Why don't you take your FUD and stick it

Re:remote desktop vs windows (2)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about a year ago | (#43462527)

I would but I can't forward the display and do it remotely without a full desktop install on every server.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (-1, Flamebait)

MrHanky (141717) | about a year ago | (#43462645)

I see. You're an idiot.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#43463153)

No. He's just someone that has real world requirements that you would like to ignore.

While X haters were busy in their echo chamber, the rest of the world discovered the utility of network transparent GUIs.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (2)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about a year ago | (#43463343)

but RDP is a network transparent GUI. How can it be anything else as it shows your GUI over the network.

X haters hate X because its just not as good as people think it is, especially over a slow link. It does everything X does, but faster and more efficiently. If you want to edit a file remotely, you RDP that app and work with it, or you remote the entire desktop (which is still faster than X remoting just the app) and run the edit program.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#43463735)

It does everything X does

You appear to have just ignored a few examples where it doesn't. The many hosts to one or one host to many situations are also pretty obvious ones where the VNC or RDP approach doesn't work. It's not 1980 any more so a single user non-networked approach is very outdated.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (1)

Tarlus (1000874) | about a year ago | (#43463989)

Why are you installing Wayland on your servers?

Re:remote desktop vs windows (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43462953)

Why? Just use the same X clients you always use, and run a rootless X server on your side.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43462463)

What does ssh have to do with graphical applications? Why on earth do you feel the need to draw that connection?

Re:remote desktop vs windows (4, Informative)

fnj (64210) | about a year ago | (#43462625)

What does ssh have to do with graphical applications? Why on earth do you feel the need to draw that connection?

If our anonymous coward had a single clue, he would know that ssh is the preferred way to forward X11 SECURELY.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43462675)

He's talking about X forwarding.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43462543)

Why not just use gvim locally and edit over sftp?

Re:remote desktop vs windows (1)

SkunkPussy (85271) | about a year ago | (#43462977)

Not very good if you are in an edit, make, run loop.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43462759)

Skunk Pussy?

Re:remote desktop vs windows (2)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#43462443)

Yes, as of a few weeks ago, support for FreeRDP [slashdot.org] is included.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (0)

fnj (64210) | about a year ago | (#43462705)

Sorry; if this is what is implied by the name, it won't fly. Remote desktop is no substitute whatever for transparently running individual remote GUI programs on your own desktop.

Unless and until Wayland understands this, it is pure garbage.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (2)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#43462865)

I haven't tried it with FreeRDP, but Microsoft's version of RDP supports something called "RemoteApp" which lets you run individual programs with network transparency. Some googling turns up what looks to be a FreeRDP version of that [github.com] .

Re:remote desktop vs windows (1)

fnj (64210) | about a year ago | (#43463479)

I haven't tried it with FreeRDP, but Microsoft's version of RDP supports something called "RemoteApp" which lets you run individual programs with network transparency. Some googling turns up what looks to be a FreeRDP version of that [github.com] .

That is encouraging, but from your link and from this one [microsoft.com] , it still seems like a hack - i.e., it's not transparent. You have to jump through hoops evidently. The beauty of X11 is the network transparency. If I've got an ssh open to a remote host, all X11 apps I run on that connection on the remote host automatically appear on my own desktop without any special treatment at all.

It might grow, but there is no assurance that it will; not really even any indication.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43463743)

If I've got an ssh open to a remote host, all X11 apps I run on that connection on the remote host automatically appear on my own desktop without any special treatment at all.

Well, assuming that the ssh admin has permitted ssh forwarding. And that you invoked your ssh client with the appropriate flags. And that you export the DISPLAY variable on the remote host. And that you set your xhost permissions on your own host.

Other than that, nothing to be done.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (1)

Alex Belits (437) | about a year ago | (#43463949)

Well, assuming that the ssh admin has permitted ssh forwarding.

There is no "ssh admin", it's the user.

And that you invoked your ssh client with the appropriate flags.

You mean, -X ?

And that you export the DISPLAY variable on the remote host. And that you set your xhost permissions on your own host.

X11 ssh forwarding avoids that by providing a proxy. You are ignorant and probably stupid.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#43463771)

Finally we're getting back some of the functionality that was built by a third party (that Citrix later bought) for NT 3.51 but nerfed by Microsoft.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (2)

EmperorArthur (1113223) | about a year ago | (#43462967)

Honestly, why do people hate on products that obviously don't meet there needs?
I understand being upset that something doesn't have what you want, but bashing the creators over and over again just gets old. If it doesn't do what you want, then just don't use it.

Wayland is designed to be much lighter than X11. It does this by offloading as much as possible onto either the kernel or the application. There are pros and cons to doing things this way. Just because you don't think it's worth it, doesn't mean you should be rude to the people who disagree. /End Rant

Re:remote desktop vs windows (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#43463121)

Honestly, why do people hate on products that obviously don't meet there needs?
I understand being upset that something doesn't have what you want, but bashing the creators over and over again just gets old. If it doesn't do what you want, then just don't use it.

That's a great option, up until the point that it becomes a de facto standard. X11 is the de facto standard for graphics on Linux, and Wayland aims to replace it. We're all going to be stuck with Wayland, so we need to speak up and make sure the authors know what we need. I doubt RDP would have been included at all if we didn't bitch about the lack of X forwarding every time Wayland was mentioned.

There are pros and cons to doing things this way

I've yet to see any pros from switching to Wayland. Name one.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (2, Insightful)

fnj (64210) | about a year ago | (#43463549)

Exactly. It's not hating the effort. It's not hating the people. It's not really even hating the project's direction per se - not if it could easily be ignored. It's hating that a good, serviceable system with valuable features (GNOME 2, X11) is likely to be REPLACED by an inferior one (GNOME 3, Wayland) lacking important features. Yes, it's still POSSIBLE with open source to forge your own way, but it's hardly practical to spend your effort fixing bad mainstream decisions when you have THINGS TO DO.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (4, Interesting)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year ago | (#43463881)

I don't get all the hate Wayland gets. The developers of X don't even like X. If you want to take over X, go ahead, but the majority of people don't want to use X because of its performance limitations.

People who use X for features that Wayland does not support are the minority. A very vocal minority. This minority wants to impose its will over the majority.

Not only is the minority trying to tell the majority what to do, but the minority isn't even the ones who are doing the work, they're the leeches who benefit from the work of the majority.

I love how the whole GPL has breed a user base that has contempt for the developer base. If you don't like it, fork it and do it yourself. Quite your b@#ching

Re:remote desktop vs windows (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#43463187)

> Honestly, why do people hate on products that obviously don't meet there needs?

That usually has to do with the product in question being shoved down everyone's throats.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (1)

TheCRAIGGERS (909877) | about a year ago | (#43463663)

> Honestly, why do people hate on products that obviously don't meet there needs?

That usually has to do with the product in question being shoved down everyone's throats.

I fail to see how Wayland, or any open source software can be "shoved down" your throat. If you don't like it, don't use it. Or modify it to suit your needs (and hopefully) release that. That's the OSS way. I'd like to add "And don't bitch about it" but we all know that's untrue. We love bitching; that will never go away. I often think these holy wars are created on purpose just for the drama they cause on Usenet, forums, and mailing lists. But I digress.

If the amount of bile being spewed about Wayland is any indication at all of its future real-world acceptance on the desktop or server, than I think X will be around for a long time. But I'm kinda doubting that. More likely, one of two things will happen: Either Wayland will not be as bad as people like you are claiming, or X will continue to be supported by people that care.

True hackers will find a way.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#43463863)

I fail to see how Wayland, or any open source software can be "shoved down" your throat.

If software you need depends on Wayland, then it is indeed being shoved down your throat.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#43463791)

The bashing is due to design choices that are going to break existing things that work and due to a few lies used to make it look better than existing choices.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (1)

Microlith (54737) | about a year ago | (#43463017)

Unless and until Wayland understands this, it is pure garbage.

Nope, it just means that Wayland is a poor fit for your niche use case.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (0)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#43463209)

> Nope, it just means that Wayland is a poor fit for your niche use case.

Look at that... an Apple Mentality retort to go with your Apple style technology.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (2)

an unsound mind (1419599) | about a year ago | (#43463305)

Wayland is being made for a set of use cases that don't perfectly match those of X11.

If said use cases are important to you, you're free to make your own replacement or keep using X11, or pay someone else to do so for you. Accusing people of being Apple fanboys in completely unrelated stories is unlikely to garner your cause much support, however.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (1)

Microlith (54737) | about a year ago | (#43463325)

an Apple Mentality retort to go with your Apple style technology.

Is this what qualifies as an argument on Slashdot these days? Idiocy like this?

Re:remote desktop vs windows (1)

fnj (64210) | about a year ago | (#43463579)

Yes, that is arguable. But you would have to explain what you gain by discarding a feature that already works fine, and why that gain is worth the sacrifice.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (1)

DrXym (126579) | about a year ago | (#43463027)

A window is just a surface. There is no reason it couldn't send a surface over the wire. And it's not "pure garbage" because it doesn't support what is nowadays a fairly esoteric feature and for which there are numerous solutions (e.g. run X over Wayland).

Re:remote desktop vs windows (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#43463161)

There is no reason it couldn't send a surface over the wire.

Bandwidth and CPU power. It takes a lot more of those to send a compressed image over the wire than it does to send the instructions to build an image. Add in compression and caching with NX, and X-forwarding is the best performing remote display mechanism in existance.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about a year ago | (#43463415)

or it would be, if all desktop/apps were composed of pure vectors and not contain bitmap images. How does X transfer a bitmap? Much more poorly than RDP does. X might have been a good thing back in the day of TWM and similar, but if you want to use X today with todays' highly graphical desktop environments, then it shows its no longer suitable.

I don't know if keeping X as well as RDP is worthwhile - if RDP performed better than X for the worst case (lots of bitmaps) and as well as X for the best case (vectors only) then its time for X to retire after decades of excellent service.

I think you'll be surprised at the performance of RDP, but we'll wait and see what happens with Wayland's RDP when someone makes some benchmarks.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#43463631)

or it would be, if all desktop/apps were composed of pure vectors and not contain bitmap images.

Vectors are getting more and more common. SVG is used for just about everything in KDE 4.

if you want to use X today with todays' highly graphical desktop environments

I just want to use X with highly useful applications. I could not give a shit if the desktop environment was highly graphical. That's the problem with Wayland. They put eye candy above powerful features.

I think you'll be surprised at the performance of RDP, but we'll wait and see what happens with Wayland's RDP when someone makes some benchmarks.

My prediction is that they'll conveniently forget to include NX in those benchmarks.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#43463909)

I think you'll be surprised at the performance of RDP, but we'll wait and see what happens with Wayland's RDP when someone makes some benchmarks.

What I'm most surprised about is the audacity of some of the fanboy claims without any benchmarks to back them up. I'm mostly thinking of a different poster that frequently places a pile of "x sux" drivel here along with some cutting and pasting of things out of context that he did not understand, but even with your comment above I'd really like to see some sign of where your performance claim comes from and how it relates to an actual use case.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (1)

DrXym (126579) | about a year ago | (#43463483)

Do you really think X11 is much more efficient these days? Even with X render it's sending complex chains of drawing instructions with bi directional communication and much of the time it would be sending bitmaps anyway. A protocol purely using bitmaps could send deltas in a single direction and be just as efficient.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (1)

fnj (64210) | about a year ago | (#43463619)

It's hardly an esoteric feature. It is completely fundamental to the highly successful design philosophy.

Running X11 as a separate window under Wayland, in which X apps are second class citizens on the desktop, is hardly going to be accepted as an adequate solution.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43463965)

X isn't network transparent and hasn't been for many years. Windows is more network transparent than X at this point - and without the immense amount of shitty server round-trips. All an X server does these days is crappy blocking IPC. It's like a dead weight around the neck of Unix desktops.

Get. The. Fuck. Over. It,

It's boring explaining to idiots these imple points.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (2)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#43462679)

This got hashed out around here two weeks ago. [slashdot.org]

They seem to be going the RDP route for network apps. I'll have to leave criticism to the experts, but my own experience is that RDP on Windows has much better performance than X via ssh or VNC. And as of MS Server 2008, single apps can be shared (TS Remote Apps) - no longer do you need to share the entire desktop. I have no experience with FreeNX, because the servers I remote into don't have it installed.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#43462731)

The question is, how easy is it to use? With X forwarding, it's nothing more than 'ssh -X remotehost', then just run your program. Is RDP on Wayland going to be as convenient?

Re:remote desktop vs windows (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#43462793)

That would require a similar flag get built into ssh. I use "-Y" :)

Re:remote desktop vs windows (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#43463021)

ssh can proxy arbitrary connections with 'ssh -D'. Something like 'ssh -D 88888 wayland-rdp -port 8888 xterm' would be acceptable.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#43463499)

I think this page [github.com] describes how it would (theoretically) work with the current implementation. Definitely some room for improvement in terms of usability, but it doesn't look too bad.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#43463713)

That's really bad. With SSH, I can log in, cd to the directory I need to be in as if it were local, and run the app as if it were local, and it "just works".

With this setup, it looks like I'm going to have to ssh into the remote machine, cd to the directory I need to be in, copy down that path, then run 'which' and copy down that path. Then I need to leave my ssh session, and construct an invocation of freerdp that includes both the paths I copied down before.

The great thing about X forwarding is that from the user side it works almost exactly like local apps do. Opening a terminal on a local machine and running a GUI app is nearly indistinguishable from opening a terminal, running ssh -X, and running a GUI app. xfreerdp totally fucks that workflow.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about a year ago | (#43463269)

I can't answer for Wayland, but on Windows you just type "mstsc" [microsoft.com] and provide whatever options you want (typically mstsc /v:remotehost)

Once connected and logged in, you get your remote desktop (or app, as some people have said you can access just an app remotely) and you can do whatever you want as if you're running the remote computer locally.

I imagine Wayland client will be of similar complexity, especially if its a compatible protocol.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (4, Informative)

Wesley Felter (138342) | about a year ago | (#43462727)

Wayland's native remoting protocol is under development but "only at the proof of concept state". http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~krh/weston/log/?h=remote [freedesktop.org] http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/2013-April/008555.html [freedesktop.org]

All the people talking about RDP keep in mind that that's a stopgap and won't be needed long-term.

Re:remote desktop vs windows (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#43463681)

That was never part of the design just like running on non-linux systems was never part of the design.
The fanboys compare it to X but it has a completely different purpose - it's the new SVGAlib.

fuck phoronix (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43462347)

Re:fuck phoronix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43462497)

I don't understand. Phoronix is the source. They wrote about it first.

Re:fuck phoronix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43462607)

no the mailing list people wrote about it first. is that so hard to understand? there is only one link the the summary besides the /. link. it leads to a site where all the links within the article go to the same site. seems spammy to me. burn the fucking world down!

GLES Acceleration for the Pi? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43462433)

I love my Pi, but it suffers immensely from slow redraws.

Die X Die! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43462469)

Nothing has been keeping Linux on the desktop behind more than X. Finally some decent graphics. Keep up the good work and keep the good bits coming.

Re:Die X Die! (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#43463225)

Yeah. That whole MS-DOS dominance of desktop computing had nothing do do with anything.

wm api (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43462481)

Can anyone point me to the docs for writing my own window manager?

Re:wm api (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43462661)

You mean like a Gnome theme, or are you talking about down to the Gtk level?

Re:wm api (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43463087)

O.o

I think he means window manager.... which would mean like a replacement for part of Gnome... a replacement for Compiz-Fuzion sort of thing.

Re:wm api (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#43463135)

A window manager works at even lower level than GTK.

Why so much Wayland? (3, Insightful)

Ecuador (740021) | about a year ago | (#43462611)

Call me ignorant. but can someone explain why we have more than a post per week either about or mentioning Wayland for the last couple of months? Is it really that interesting for the average /. user to hear about every feature added to Wayland or every project/company whatever that supports or does not support Wayland in some way? Or is it just one of those strange obsessions of the /. editors?
I understand it is an important project, supposed to be the successor to X11 etc so it has more interest to geeks than, say, bitcoins, but is it really that interesting?

Re:Why so much Wayland? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43462733)

Only in the same way that Bitcoin and other products advertised on Slashdot are only "strange obsessions" of the editors.

It's as interesting as they are paid to find it interesting.

Re:Why so much Wayland? (1)

Microlith (54737) | about a year ago | (#43462739)

can someone explain why we have more than a post per week either about or mentioning Wayland for the last couple of months?

Because there's been a lot of activity in the desktop rendering space, particularly with Canonical using SurfaceFlinger and announcing Mir amid a spray of FUD.

Of course, we could just start arbitrarily ignoring projects and other things that Ecuador doesn't like.

Re:Why so much Wayland? (1)

Ecuador (740021) | about a year ago | (#43462905)

Of course, we could just start arbitrarily ignoring projects and other things that Ecuador doesn't like.

Yes, please, can we go back to Assange and how Ecuador offered him asylum?

Re:Why so much Wayland? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43463391)

Slashdot already selectively chooses winning projects.

The magic list:
Linux (most distros)
haiku
freebsd (slow news day)
netbsd (once a year)
dragonfly (the golden child of BSD on slashdot)
openbsd (just when they screw up)
an occasional solaris fork but that's drying up

We rarely hear about other OS news. It's sad.

Re:Why so much Wayland? (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#43462769)

I'm reading. This is the kind of stuff I come to read, though sometimes I admit getting sucked into the trolling articles about BIG COMPANY X suing BIG COMPANY Y.

Re:Why so much Wayland? (5, Funny)

ssam (2723487) | about a year ago | (#43462785)

wayland is a pyramid scheme. the editors have mined lots of waylands when they were cheap, and now they are trying to push the price up so they can sell them all. anyone who thinks a wayland is worth $200 is a fool. they are only good for buying drugs. back to the gold standard. get off my lawn. waste of energy. where's my gun.

Re:Why so much Wayland? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43463023)

Best post on slashdot today! Bravo, sir!

Personally, I'd rather read about Bitcoin than Wayland. Bitcoin's an interesting experiment in cryptography, economics, and networking. Wayland is just some NIH people reinventing the wheel again. X11 is quck and snappy on this working 486 I have over here, so I don't see why we need a big project to fix it's "slow" performance.

Re:Why so much Wayland? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#43463257)

...and I am happy as a clam with all of my Steam games.

As an end user, even neglecting remote desktop use cases, I am still missing the point of trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Re:Why so much Wayland? (5, Informative)

ssam (2723487) | about a year ago | (#43463451)

I should probably say I am not anti wayland (though X11 works well for me on a wide range of hardware including my phone). But the linux.conf.au 2013 talk makes a pretty good case https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIctzAQOe44 [youtube.com] (it should also be required viewing before anyone is allowed to comment on wayland)

Re:Why so much Wayland? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43463669)

Thanks. Makes sense now.

Re:Why so much Wayland? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43462959)

I think we should start a subsubsubsubculture on Slashdot aggressively posting "How is this 'Stuff that matters?'" to all the super-niche fanboy articles about Wayland, Bitcoin, and Raspberry Pi. (note that raspberry pie, in contrast, does matter)

Re:Why so much Wayland? (1)

Cenan (1892902) | about a year ago | (#43463535)

So like Anonymous, but with cowards instead of script kiddies? And we could meet in super secret IRC chatrooms and, you know, hang out and talk smack about all the drones and fanbois. Oh, and we could all post at the same time, wouldn't it be super awesome if there were 31 frits prost!'s? Oh the glory.

Re:Why so much Wayland? (1)

kermidge (2221646) | about a year ago | (#43463889)

Agreed.

It's been way too many years, so in the public interest for niche stories spurred by proponents and detractors alike: it was reported that Natalie Portman suffered a wardrobe malfunction yesterday while walking down a sidewalk. One of her socks 'accidentally' slipped, exposing an ankle. Since the other ankle remained covered, the question "Is one larger than the other?" is as yet un-answered. No pics yet, so it didn't happen.

Raspberry and rhubarb pie, now that is something that matters. De gustibus....

Re:Why so much Wayland? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#43463227)

I understand it is an important project, supposed to be the successor to X11 etc so it has more interest to geeks than, say, bitcoins, but is it really that interesting?

I find them quite interesting and would like the rate of Wayland news to be kept at its current level.

Re:Why so much Wayland? (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about a year ago | (#43463947)

Call me ignorant. but can someone explain why we have more than a post per week either about or mentioning Wayland for the last couple of months?

Because topics likes these generate web traffic. Bitcoin stories generate debates on its merits as a currency. Waveland stories generate X must live, RDP is better than X, and Linux may finally catchup debates.

There may be more legitimate stories out there, but it wouldn't generate as much traffic and therefore aren't favored as much by this and other tech news sites.

Yay for delivering results (1)

Tailhook (98486) | about a year ago | (#43462669)

You can dream up all the X replacements you want, but you need to deliver working code.

Good job Wayland.

I'm Stoked (5, Insightful)

Tyler R. (2787023) | about a year ago | (#43462773)

Wayland is going to be the best thing to happen Linux ever! This is what's going to make Steam games smooth, make graphical lags and glitches nonexistent, and set the stage for better graphics drivers from graphics card venders! I'm stoked! Can't wait for this to go mainstream!

Re:I'm Stoked (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43463077)

Wayland is going to be the best thing to happen Linux ever! This is what's going to make Steam games smooth, make graphical lags and glitches nonexistent, and set the stage for better graphics drivers from graphics card venders! I'm stoked! Can't wait for this to go mainstream!

...all that is needed now is a better name.
Seriously, who here besides me feels always reminded of Wayland Smithers ;)

Re:I'm Stoked (2)

Cenan (1892902) | about a year ago | (#43463565)

Me too. And Weston sounds like a gun that didn't quite kill enough people to achieve legendary status.

One thing you didn't notice ... (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#43463985)

One thing you didn't notice is Wayland is using those same hardware drivers that were built for X. Don't expect different performance in anything other than windows and widgets.

I still prefer X.... (1)

Damouze (766305) | about a year ago | (#43462875)

On the one hand I am beginning to find this development interesting.

On the other hand, we already have a proven stable graphical application protocol. It's called X and it's been around for 30 years. I just don't get it. Why reinvent the wheel?

Re:I still prefer X.... (1)

Microlith (54737) | about a year ago | (#43463045)

Because of all the unused cruft in X that makes maintaining it a hairy beast.

You mean... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43463165)

All that unused cruft they've already broken like non-greyscale 8 bit pseudocolor palettes, all the legacy Xlib functionality (removed during the migration to xcb), XAA support, All those 'legacy' 16 bit capable 3d accelerators and the dri1 infrastructure to support them?

Cuz yeah, all that 'cruft' has already been dropped, whether the rest of us wanted it to or not, and irrespective of if the performance of the 'replacements' which generally speaking only showed performance improvements for the then-current generation of graphics cards, not the legacy ones which now had to fall back to unaccelerated drivers as the code their accelerated counterparts relied on was stripped out as 'too much trouble to maintain'.

The only reason I'm rooting for wayland is so all those douchebag devs and companies will move on and stop raping X11 into the bloated and ever less useful monstrosity it's become.

Re:I still prefer X.... (2)

tuffy (10202) | about a year ago | (#43463155)

Wayland promises to eliminate tearing, lag, redrawing or flicker, which would be a welcome change.

Dead on arrival? (1)

Marcion (876801) | about a year ago | (#43462881)

At the most optimistic, Wayland is still one or two years away from mainstream use. Even then, most apps will run under the rootless X server.

X will finally disappear if and when all apps upgrade to GTK3 or QT5 (which might be never).

Wayland is X designed properly, however it is basically the same thing. It does not seem to yet acknowledge the wider changing context within which desktop Linux has to operate, i.e. we are moving away from a world where manufacturers produce devices for Windows (and don't care about desktop Linux) into a world where manufacturers produce devices for Android (and still don't care about desktop Linux).

Canonical became flame-bait central over Mir and their reactive 'community engagement' (troll feeding), but I wonder if they have a point, that by the time Wayland is widely deployable it will be outdated?

Re:Dead on arrival? (2)

Wesley Felter (138342) | about a year ago | (#43463051)

Even years from now there will still be a few people who do actual work, and they won't be using tablets to do it. They'll be using computers and they'll need an OS which is optimized for productivity, not gaming, watching movies, tweeting, or shopping at Amazon. Few as they are, these people are willing to pay real money for a computer, like $2,000. Perhaps that is what GNOME and KDE should focus on, considering that Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Canonical don't care.

Re:Dead on arrival? (1)

geek (5680) | about a year ago | (#43464031)

Even years from now there will still be a few people who do actual work, and they won't be using tablets to do it.

Are you sure about that? My phone has more processing power than my desktop did just 8-10 years ago. In fact my phone is so fast there really is no reason why I shouldn't be able to dock it to a monitor with a bluetooth keyboard/mouse and get all of my work done on it. Then undock it and take it with me wherever I go.

I have a full office suite on my phone. It does exchange activesync. I have a multitude of HTML5 compatible web browsers capable of handling most of the web applications I work with.

I'm seeing less need for a desktop every day. Of course the people developing this idealized version of a smartphone will likely need powerful high end workstations for compilation and rendering etc but why would 90% of the population need all of the power a desktop offers? I'm even somewhat of a power user and even I see the writing on the wall. We've reached a state where "faster" has become "fast enough." I don't need more software bloat clogging up my system requiring hardware upgrades every year. A slimmed down, Android or iOS operating system will do everything I need on a day to day basis, will be more portable, have a longer lasting battery and in the case of Android, not lock me into a desktop ecosystem like Microsoft or Apple.

I think its ironic that there still isn't a decent activesync outlook replacement for Linux desktops but there are numerous ones for my phone. In some ways my phone is actually more functional than my desktop.

Re:Dead on arrival? (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about a year ago | (#43463067)

Every week I read "The desktop is dead", written by some retarded CEO or "guru". I am hopeful that the Wayland make things right (aka, desktop), but ... Where are the distros using then? Or he will be forever a curiosity?

Re:Dead on arrival? (1)

Microlith (54737) | about a year ago | (#43463071)

I don't see any actual argument being made here that highlights how Wayland could possibly be obsolete by the time it is widely deployed. Mir doesn't even exist, and the only arguments for it were purely uninformed FUD.

Re:Dead on arrival? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43463141)

Wayland is X designed properly, however it is basically the same thing.

Wayland is not X designed properly; Wayland is not at all X and it does not do basically the same thing.

Love it or hate it, but it is not X at all.

Re:Dead on arrival? (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#43463365)

At the most optimistic, Wayland is still one or two years away from mainstream use.

The most optimistic projection is that Wayland will never be in mainstream use.

Even then, most apps will run under the rootless X server.

Leaving us endlessly confused over how to forward apps over the network. And leading to all sorts of confusion about window managers and decorations.

X will finally disappear if and when all apps upgrade to GTK3 or QT5 (which might be never).

As if those are the only toolkits in existence. What about wx apps? xcb? Java?

Wayland is X designed properly, however it is basically the same thing.

If it were designed properly, it would support network transparency by default. It would also have server side window decorations. And you could switch window managers without restarting the entire display. Personally, I don't much appreciate sacrificing features for "proper design".

Canonical became flame-bait central over Mir and their reactive 'community engagement' (troll feeding), but I wonder if they have a point, that by the time Wayland is widely deployable it will be outdated?

If they retained X11 protocol compatibility, this would never be an issue.

Re:Dead on arrival? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43463621)

If they retained X11 protocol compatibility, Wayland would be pointless

Re:Dead on arrival? (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#43463739)

Lies. There's nothing wrong with X that can be attributed to the protocol. It's the Xorg codebase that's gotten unwieldy. Wayland throws the baby out with the bathwater.

Bah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43463901)

Not dead yet? No? Wake me when so, good sir.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...