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!

Wayland 1.2.0 Released With Weston

timothy posted about a year ago | from the somewhere-there's-a-kid-named-wayland-weston dept.

Graphics 122

An anonymous reader writes "Wayland 1.2 & Weston 1.2 have been released. Features of this quarterly update to the X.Org/Mir display competitor is support for color management, a new input method framework, a Raspberry Pi renderer/back-end, HiDPI output scaling, multi-seat improvements, and various other changes for this next-generation Linux desktop display protocol and compositor."

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

kthx (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44269495)

kthx.

And the weather forcast for Florida is... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44269647)

With the Zimmerman verdict due any day, a category five chimp-out alert has been posted for all areas of Florida. White people are advised to barricade themselves in their homes, because as everyone knows, niggers are not known for their rationality or ability to control themselves, and don't take bad news well.

Re:And the weather forcast for Florida is... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44269699)

One of the most demanding and awful jobs I ever had was a customer service representative. Not to get too in depth of what I used to do, I fielded quite a few calls from niggers due to the nature of our work (basically it was the sort of thing where if they didn’t pay their bills, they were sent our way).

By far the most frequent and demanding callers to our phones were niggers. I could tell they were niggers because of the names (Shaneeka Brown and such) and their nigger babble. Usually there were nigglets squalling in the background of all these calls. More than once I heard something like “DASHAWN I TOLE YOU TO SHUT THE FUCK UP!” and a thumping sound, and then proceeded to whine about all the reasons why the bill we sent was a racist bill and it was our fault they didn’t pay it.

I learned so much about TNB sitting at that desk, fielding calls from niggers all day. I wasn’t the only one – there were some days that my fellow coworkers got up from their desk and uttered slurs under their breath. I had those moments many times, and it was really a point in my life that it started to occur to me just how bad niggers really are, as previously I’d been relatively sheltered and isolated from the worst aspects of TNB.

The standard calls every day went something like this:

Me: Hello, this is so and so from such and such, how may I help you?

Nigger: Dis be Jameeka, I jus gotta bill from you alls saying muh policy be cancelled, what da hail?

Me: It appears as though we sent you three bills to the address on file and you never responded or paid them. So you are cancelled.

Nigger: What dat sheeit is fuckt up! I aint got no bills from yall.

Me: Well they were sent to you at such and such address.

Nigger: Dat aint muh address. I live at 22 Jenkins Street in Ghetto Ave wit muh cuzzin Jamal now.

Me: wellthat IS the address you gave us. Did you notify us of your move?

and on and on. It was endless how the nigger would find all these reasons for why they didn’t get or pay for the bill. Then if we refused to accept payment (which was often the case) and laid down the law of YT upon them (pay your bills or you’re screwed) they chimped out. Often we had to hang up when it reached the most feverish pitch. Our boss didn’t like it but what could we do? There were other niggers waiting in queue to yell at us.

Nowadays whenever I call a company and it’s obvious a spook is on the line taking calls, I hang up as a reflexive action – I believe I have Post Niggeratic Stress from that job.

Re:And the weather forcast for Florida is... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44271401)

You sound like a real fun guy to be around...

Re:And the weather forcast for Florida is... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44272303)

I believe it, sadly.

Looks good! (4, Interesting)

CajunArson (465943) | about a year ago | (#44269575)

Wayland & Weston are coming along pretty well and we are seeing increased adoption in both GTK+/QT toolkits and in desktops with upcoming versions of KDE.

One area where the developers need to go out and evangelize is on the front of EGL for proprietary drivers. Yes it's great that Intel's open source drivers (and to a lesser extend the open-source AMD & Nvidia drivers) have EGL support, but both AMD & Nvidia need to be convinced that EGL is important to their upcoming proprietary drivers too.

The irony here is that Mir, which is is seen as a huge competitor to Wayland, could end up helping Wayland enourmously since Canonical doesn't seem to be afraid to pick up a phone and call people at AMD/Nvidia to talk about updating the drivers.

Re:Looks good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44269701)

One things is for sure, ServiTroll_Major [slashdot.org] is going to be pissed about this. I forecast heavy trolling from him any moment now.

Re:Looks good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44270881)

Yes, that grass sure is growing!

Re:Looks good! (0)

diego.viola (1104521) | about a year ago | (#44274851)

Qt.

Not "QT"

Qt is the correct name.

QT is often confused with QuickTime.

Please write it correctly the next time to avoid confusion. Thanks.

Re:Looks good! (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#44276685)

Anybody knows whether and when the BSDs - PC-BSD and others - will have Wayland available? Also, will KDE 5 and beyond continue to run on X as well, or just Wayland?

third post! (4, Funny)

fredan (54788) | about a year ago | (#44269615)

since I'm using X11 ;-(

Re:third post! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44269723)

If you are using X11 - should that no be 12th post ?

Re:third post! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44269769)

At least you have a clean client/server model instead of riding the short bus to MS Clippy / iOS / autocorrect (/ ShowView / automatic gearbox) land.

Re:third post! (1)

crazyaxemaniac (219708) | about a year ago | (#44269945)

The client/server model is not a Wayland problem.

From presentations I've seen from the developers the talking points I've heard are:
* X11's client/server protocol has lots of round-trips that make remote applications respond slowly.
* X11 has a client/server model but newer toolkits end up transferring bitmaps over the wire and in this case the RDP/vnc is better or at least no worse.
* If an X11-like client/server protocol is desired the toolkits are in a better position to implement something X11-like that sends drawing instructions over the wire.

Re:third post! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44270059)

Client / Server is fundamental to thin clients.

Re:third post! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44270259)

My thin clients use ICA and RDP. Oh you weren't talking about Wyse and Citrix? (You know what 99% of the thin client world actually uses..)

Re:third post! (2)

crazyaxemaniac (219708) | about a year ago | (#44270273)

Client / Server is fundamental to thin clients.

There's a vnc/rdp client is about as thin as you get. Wayland compositors can do this. What else is needed?

Re:third post! (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#44271233)

Absolutely it is. Being able to control round trips is fundamental to thin clients working on a WAN as opposed to a LAN environment.

Re:third post! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44271617)

Agreed with all points but the last. Toolkits are NOT in a better position to implement an X11-like protocol, because there are many of them. The only beautiful thing about X11 is that it is a standard.

Re:third post! (1)

Guy Harris (3803) | about a year ago | (#44271239)

At least you have a clean client/server model instead of riding the short bus to MS Clippy / iOS / autocorrect (/ ShowView / automatic gearbox) land.

And you couldn't implement Clippy and auto-correct in an X11 desktop or desktop atop another "clean" client/server window system? (And if "iOS" refers to any of the various sins ascribed to iOS, what about them couldn't be implemented in an X11 interface?)

Re:third post! (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#44271323)

iOS uses some very low level hardware based systems that don't work with X11. X11 for example doesn't allow for an h.264 movie as a graphical primitive with its own hardware based rendering system that can't go back and forth between buffers. Similarly for the camera.

More importantly the ram requirements would be a substantial problem. 1.2m per screen with 3 screens for layers with 60 ftps. Double that up again for the extra X11 buffers and you are out of ram already before you have any code. Which means you either have to finish your screen computations twice as fast or not use X11's buffering strategy.

Re:third post! (1)

Guy Harris (3803) | about a year ago | (#44271519)

iOS uses some very low level hardware based systems that don't work with X11. X11 for example doesn't allow for an h.264 movie as a graphical primitive with its own hardware based rendering system that can't go back and forth between buffers. Similarly for the camera.

More importantly the ram requirements would be a substantial problem. 1.2m per screen with 3 screens for layers with 60 ftps. Double that up again for the extra X11 buffers and you are out of ram already before you have any code. Which means you either have to finish your screen computations twice as fast or not use X11's buffering strategy.

I wasn't saying "why couldn't X11 be used for iOS?", I was saying "which of the various sins ascribed to iOS couldn't be done atop X11?", with "the various sins ascribed to iOS" referring to the "ZOMG IT DOESN'T DO MULTITASKING"/"ZOMG IT HAS DRM"/"ZOMG ONLY APPLE-APPROVED APPS CAN RUN ON IT"/"ZOMG IT DOESN'T LET APPS DO XXX" stuff that shows up here. The poster to whom I replied spoke of "MS Clippy / iOS / autocorrect (/ ShowView / automatic gearbox) land", in which context "iOS" sounds as if it's referring to that sort of higher-level stuff, not to low-level window system details (which is why that poster was being so spectacularly silly).

Re:third post! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44273017)

No, you didn't get my point at all.

The things I mentioned are all examples of nightmare scenarios of utter dumbing-down, where it has become so "simple", that it is catastrophically inefficient, limiting and useless, and serves no other purpose than to cater to people who are so lazy that they harm themselves by crippling their own abilities for "simplicity"'s sake. People who ride the short bus. (Ok, that's an insult to the actual mentally disabled people. They don't have a choice. But these people here do.)

iOS and Win8 are worst case scenarios (until they invent something even worse). They are really downright crippling.

And Canonical, Ubuntu, Gnome3 , Wayland... it's all coming from that same bunch of mock-educated retards with the same fucked up "KISS"/Apple mindset.

Re:third post! (1)

Guy Harris (3803) | about a year ago | (#44273067)

And Canonical, Ubuntu, Gnome3 , Wayland... it's all coming from that same bunch of mock-educated retards with the same fucked up "KISS"/Apple mindset.

Please offer evidence (rather than a rant) that Wayland is "coming from that same bunch of mock-educated retards with the same fucked up "KISS"/Apple mindset".

Re:third post! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44276361)

Yeah, and Obama should provide his long-form birth certificate too. Because that will *totally* stop their disbelief...
Please provide evidence that your opinion isn't already set in stone.

Because if you had ever looked at Wayland, the e-mails of its developers, used iOS, Gnome 3, Ubuntu, Windows 8, etc, and did so with open eyes, you would have detected a pattern long ago.

Jolla will use Wayland too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44269673)

Jolla's upcoming Linux-based mobile will also ship with Wayland [twitter.com] . Makes sense, as it became clear recently they'll also use Qt 5.0. Good to see them jumping on new tech early on.

Re:Jolla will use Wayland too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44269683)

Jolla's upcoming Linux-based mobile will also ship with Wayland [twitter.com] . Makes sense, as it became clear recently they'll also use Qt 5.0. Good to see them jumping on new tech early on.

this time last year they said they would ship a device by xmas last year.

Wrong Summary (2, Informative)

allo (1728082) | about a year ago | (#44269805)

Wayland ist not a Xorg/Mir competitor, as mir is not affiliated in any way with xorg. Wayland is the planned successor of Xorg, while Mir is some Ubuntu project.

Re:Wrong Summary (2)

brodock (1568447) | about a year ago | (#44269895)

Mir is another alternative/competitor to Xorg... the difference is that Mir is following the idea of a rigid protocol where Mir is following the idea of providing an API... both of then have drawbacks... but I'm confident that Mir could win the run. History has prooved that its not the "perfect engineered solution" that always win... Despite of what you think... in the end... its all about user adoption.

Re: Wrong Summary (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44269929)

I read that thing about "rigid protocol vs api" from shuttleworth's blog, and I still can't figure out how it isn't complete bullshit.

Re:Wrong Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44270019)

You are mentioning Mir twice. Which one is what Mir provides? The rigid protocol or the API?

Re: Wrong Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44270367)

Mir provides the API.

Re:Wrong Summary (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44270157)

Except it's complete bullshit. Read the announcement: Wayland 1.2.0 now provides a stable server API (it already provided a stable client API since 1.0.0) as well as a rigid protocol. Everything, everything, that has been said about Mir being better then Wayland is Grade-A Pure Bullshit. Also, Mir will lose because nobody else is ever going to use it. Wayland: all Linux distros except Ubuntu (including all commerically supported distros like SLE and RHEL). Mir: only Ubuntu. Hell, even the Ubuntu derivatives like Kubuntu and Xubuntu have publically stated they won't use Mir!

Re:Wrong Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44270261)

Indeed, more than that, by self-admitted design, Mir is pretty much a back-end for Unity only. Other desktops will have to use XMir, i.e. X11 running full-screen on top of Mir. Presumably on day there will be a Wayland–Mir compatibility layer

Mir is an ally for getting KMS/EGL support from the drivers though.

Re:Wrong Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44271681)

Mir is for Unity, and Ubuntu wants to do things which Wayland will not. Ubuntu isn't trying to make a display server for everyone, in fact they aren't even making one for anyone else but Unity. This gives them some advantage, because they can do what they want.

Many advantages to Mir (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | about a year ago | (#44274147)

The other advantage is that Canonnical can cock it up without affecting anyone else.

Re:Wrong Summary (1)

westlake (615356) | about a year ago | (#44270495)

Wayland is the planned successor of Xorg, while Mir is some Ubuntu project.

Given the client-side success of Ubuntu and OEM support for Ubuntu, Mir can't and shouldn't be casually dismissed.

Re:Wrong Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44270597)

Still not a "competitor" since Mir is essentially a Canonical-only technology that no other distribution plans to adopt. In the fairly near future, Wayland will pretty much be the standard Linux display technology, used and supported by a wide variety of distributions and developers. Mir and all the other dependent components will be Ubuntu-only and users will be tied to the ability of Canonical, and only Canonical, to support all that software with timely updates and bug fixes.

Re:Wrong Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44271953)

Still not a "competitor" since Mir is essentially a Canonical-only technology that no other distribution plans to adopt.

Which is irrelevant since no one uses the other distributions.

Re:Wrong Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44270645)

Why is parent getting modded up? Of course Mir is a competitor. This is just flamebait/trolling

Re:Wrong Summary (1)

allo (1728082) | about a year ago | (#44275919)

because you're not understanding the posting.

Mir IS a competitor, as i said in my posting. But it is not Xorg/Mir vs Wayland, but Xorg/Wayland vs. Mir. Wayland will be a successor of Xorg, while Mir is a totally different Project. Of course, Wayland is no X11+1, but a different project, too. But the developers now seem to agree, that Wayland is a good software to replace X11, while Mir is Ubuntu's NIH-Project.

any decent tiling WMs? (2)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#44269829)

Is Weston the only choice, or is there anything vaguely analogous to i3 or dwm in terms of how windows are laid out and managed?

Re:any decent tiling WMs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44269927)

You could always run i3 or dwm via X on Wayland.

Re:any decent tiling WMs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44270239)

Aside from that pretty much defeating the point of running Wayland at all...

Re: any decent tiling WMs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44269951)

Weston is a sample Wayland server/window manager. It's not expected to be used for most people.

Re:any decent tiling WMs? (4, Informative)

raxx7 (205260) | about a year ago | (#44270009)

Yes and no.

Weston is only a reference implementation of a Wayland compositor.
Wayland developers don't expect it actually to be used by normal users.

Instead, they expect others to implement their own Wayland compositors, as it should not be any harder than writing a similar X Window Manager.
That is what the Gnome, KDE and Enlightmenment people plan to do, convert their current X compositors (gnome shell, kwin, e) into Wayland compositors.

So, eventually, you might get a dwm Wayland equivalent. But it doesn't exist yet.

Re:any decent tiling WMs? (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#44271015)

From what I've heard, window managers are much harder to write for Wayland than for X11 but there is an expectation there will be several in a few years. It isn't going to be like X11 though where you can create a basic window manager as a classroom assignment.

The Real Story Behind Wayland and X.org (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44269983)

Daniel Stone made a great presentation explaining various problems with X11 that Wayland tries to fix:
http://mirror.linux.org.au/linux.conf.au/2013/ogv/The_real_story_behind_Wayland_and_X.ogv [linux.org.au]

The same presentation is also on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIctzAQOe44 [youtube.com]

Re:The Real Story Behind Wayland and X.org (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#44271235)

Good video link by the AC. Worth checking out.

Re:The Real Story Behind Wayland and X.org (3, Informative)

cheesybagel (670288) | about a year ago | (#44272029)

What I did manage to grasp from his talk is that the basic X design which he claims is terrible has remained for the most part while their fantastic new designs for things like XInput keep getting obsoleted one after the other. That he does not like the fact that X11 has a lot of extensions so his answer is to rewrite it. What will eventually happen if he ever has success is Wayland will get a lot of cruft as well.

I also noticed he gave no demos of Wayland at all. He isn't even eating his own dogfood. At least the original X designers actually created it to solve a problem they had and they actually used it.

His model of doing everything using pixmaps is also probably going to be a problem if displays keep going to higher resolutions as is happening recently. In that case you may spend a lot less bandwidth sending draw calls rather than the pixmaps.

I also disagree about the claim that VNC is good enough.

Re:The Real Story Behind Wayland and X.org (2)

complete loony (663508) | about a year ago | (#44272633)

What I'd like to see built as a replacement for X11's network abstractions, is a sandboxed VM running on top of the display server, passing arbitrary messages back and forth with the remote application.

For example, take the llvm based pNaCl sandbox that the google Chrome team are building. Expose wayland API's for updating and displaying window pixmaps, and receiving input.

Then you could port the widget libraries from a UI toolkit to run directly in this VM without imposing any limits to creativity and future innovation. Visual feedback for a drag operation or button push can then be animated immediately on the display, while a simple event message is sent back to the host application to trigger further processing.

Plus the application developer could implement arbitrary custom widgets and have the same low latency interaction with the user.

I'm not suggesting that the entire application should be run in this sandbox, but in some cases that may be acceptable too.

Re:The Real Story Behind Wayland and X.org (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#44273671)

What I'd like to see built as a replacement for X11's network abstractions

Sockets - been there since before the first official release.

passing arbitrary messages back and forth with the remote application.

Is ssh what you are looking for? X thinks it's all local and ssh feeds the remote stuff to and from the local display, using those sockets that have been in there for years.

Re:The Real Story Behind Wayland and X.org (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | about a year ago | (#44275199)

Try reading the whole comment before posting.

Re:The Real Story Behind Wayland and X.org (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#44275861)

Of course I did.

Re:The Real Story Behind Wayland and X.org (3, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | about a year ago | (#44272729)

What I did manage to grasp from his talk is that the basic X design which he claims is terrible has remained for the most part

What has remained are the parts that you really can't replace without ceasing to be X11, he goes to great lengths to explain how toolkits, compositors and extensions all try to work around it. It's the reason they want to replace X11 with Weston, not the other way around.

while their fantastic new designs for things like XInput keep getting obsoleted one after the other.

Or as others would call it, getting new features. Do I smell a case of WORKS4ME? Didn't need it, don't want it so nobody else should either, X11 is just fine the way it is.

I also noticed he gave no demos of Wayland at all. He isn't even eating his own dogfood.

It was a presentation not a demo, don't pretend you can't find demos on YouTube... There are even LiveCDs so you can try it yourself.

His model of doing everything using pixmaps is also probably going to be a problem if displays keep going to higher resolutions as is happening recently. In that case you may spend a lot less bandwidth sending draw calls rather than the pixmaps.

Which would be relevant if anybody was using X as a drawing library, but nobody does that anymore. There is OpenGL pass-through with GLX, but the final image acts like a pixmap to the X server and I assume there will be something similar with Wayland, in fact as I understand it that's the only way Wayland will work as it has no drawing routines of its own.

Re:The Real Story Behind Wayland and X.org (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#44275853)

The basic design for X... not really. The basic design for X does a great job of solving the problem of solving the problem of how to distribute workload on a LAN when servers can do the complex graphics while clients can't. That's not the situation anywhere. Motif is not the way things are done. Everyone is constantly trying to get around the basic design for X because they want to shift workload from the servers (X-Client) to the client (X-Server). So no I don't think the basic design has lasted.

As for Wayland getting cruft. The idea of Wayland is that hopefully it fits the model and gets tossed when the model no longer fits.

As for "eating his own dogfood" he was specific, he is going to start using Wayland himself when he fixes Mutter as a compositor so that GNOME can run on Wayland plus one other to-do.

As for VNC good enough, he said it was better than X. Wayland has always pushed for an RDP type solution.

Benchmarks please (0, Troll)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#44270033)

Will those "X sux and wayland is the answer" put up some numbers (they don't even have to good ones just something to show future promise) or shut up?

Re:Benchmarks please (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44270431)

I read in the Wayland documentation that the primary motivation for Wayland is that it's a fresh start. The objective is to be able to drop support for old X11 functionality. I think that's a worthy enough cause.

And while they're at it, they are implementing Wayland with a new vision where (as far as I understand) the server is just a resource manager that gets the client in direct touch with the hardware. The work is done in the libraries.

I'm not sure I'd like the applications running directly on local hardware. Rather, imagine a Qt Server local to the Wayland server. The Qt toolkit would convert Qt method calls into messages and messages back into signals (callbacks) while the Qt Server takes care of the Widgets, themes and such. That would probably enhance, rather than sacrifice, the network transparency of X11. You could then run a GTK Server next to the Qt Server so you wouldn't be stuck with one technology.

Re:Benchmarks please (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#44270623)

is that it's a fresh start

Which is misleading because it uses the X hardware drivers.

Re:Benchmarks please (1, Interesting)

kriebz (258828) | about a year ago | (#44270773)

Actually, your observation is misleading. Graphics drivers on Linux have been using a lot of Linux features for a long time to improve performance, implement modern features, and handle hardware management in the kernel, where it belongs. No rule says that code can then only be used by X. They are Linux drivers, not X drivers.

Re:Benchmarks please (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#44273457)

They are the driver written for xorg and not for the linux kernel.
Which reminds me - a major drawback of Wayland is it is designed around some features that only exist in linux and not in other versions of *nix. Whether that will be corrected later (as happened when gnome started the same way) or not remains to be seen.

Re:Benchmarks please (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44275049)

No, they are the Linux kernel driver, written for the DRI2 API.

Re:Benchmarks please (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44270491)

Since you asked so nicely, I tested Weston recently. While performance was about the same when comparing Weston and X, the Weston implementation used significantly less RAM. In the range of 50-75% of what X was using for similar operations.

Re:Benchmarks please (1, Interesting)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about a year ago | (#44270581)

For starters, me and many others wanted an accelerated desktop for the Raspberry Pi. Through the shitty documentation and poor ass code structure, I couldn't come close to figure out how to write a video driver for X. In Wayland, you have a reference implementation (Weston) to build one. That alone is a huge advantage

Re:Benchmarks please (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44270591)

Not numbers, but it does at least seem to perform better on lower-end hardware:

http://www.hardware.slashdot.org/story/13/05/27/227242/vastly-improved-raspberry-pi-performance-with-wayland

Re:Benchmarks please (1)

Barsteward (969998) | about a year ago | (#44270637)

Go and watch Daniel Stone's 2013 presentation for info from the horses mouth

Re:Benchmarks please (1, Informative)

multi io (640409) | about a year ago | (#44270985)

Will those "X sux and wayland is the answer" put up some numbers (they don't even have to good ones just something to show future promise) or shut up?

Sometimes when you're fiddling with context menus too much, you manage to lock up the X server completely -- all you can do is move the mouse pointer, which at this point mostly points north-east or has turned into a cross.

Whenever an X client is somehow busy, does something bad or hogs up resources, the whole server freezes, sometimes periodically for half a second every two seconds or so. You can see it e.g. during graphically intensive redraws, or when Chrome loads several tabs simultaneously -- all the animations in the tab headers stop periodically, and the mouse pointer freezes at the same times. When I opened a few Chrome tabs too many lately, the load skyrocketed up to about 60, and the machine was inoperable for 10 minutes, before calmed down again, on its own. This has happened more than once too. These may in part be implementation issues (Xorg being single-threaded and all), and I don't know how well Wayland does in those kinds of situations, all I know is that the OSX display server fares much better. Individual clients may freeze, but the compositor always works, the mouse pointer never freezes, and you never see half-drawn frames or other random artifacts.

Re:Benchmarks please (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#44273709)

That's X - please answer the question and tell me how your chrome usage on Wayland behaves under the same conditions.

Re:Benchmarks please (3, Interesting)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#44271065)

Sure.

Speed of light 186,282 miles per second
Speed that a human can detect jitter of an icon tracing a finger 1/100th of a second
size of the earth 26k miles
circumference of the earth 24,901
fastest possible a round trip can occur from the worst 2 spots on the earth assuming 0 latency beyond the speed of light: .0683 seconds
or the earth is about 7x too big for X11 to work.

Chance of us being able to fix either the speed of light or the size of the earth 0%

Re:Benchmarks please (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#44271075)

sorry .0683 seconds is for a one way trip. Round trip is double that. i.e. earth is 13.5x too big.

Re:Benchmarks please (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#44273471)

Nice joke, but could I get an answer from a grown up please?

Re:Benchmarks please (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44275065)

A grown up would go and do a bit of their own research, and try it out for themselves, rather than whine impotently on an anonymous internet site, about how nobody is doing them a favor.

Re:Benchmarks please (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#44275833)

No, the people making the extraordinary claims are the ones that are expected to provide evidence of it. They have not which is why I am asking for it.

Re:Benchmarks please (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#44275863)

X11 is permanently unfixable. That's not a minor issue. A grown up is going to tell you that latencies over the public internet is worse than that and with QoS becoming more important and mobile latencies are likely to increase over the next generation.

Re:Benchmarks please (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#44277177)

Another post supplied some hope that you were going to treat this seriously but now you're off again into the land of wild irrelevant claims insulting the intelligence of the readers. Could you please push off and let somebody who actually knows something about Wayland or X reply?

Re:Benchmarks please (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#44275611)

Seriously, how the hell is the parent post a troll.

These articles are always full of X sux trolls. How is asking for some evidence trolling?

Re:Benchmarks please (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#44275875)

The poster is pretty well known to dismiss good answers he's gotten over the years.

The problems with X11 start at things like the number of round trips the client and server have to engage in. Anyone can watch the protocol chat back and forth in RAM and them imagine that they were on a connection with 100ms, 200ms latency....

It isn't hard to do the math for some of these bad cases:
150 round trips x 200 ms latency = 3 seconds till the window gets finished drawing.

Anyone who has used X11 over a WAN has seen this problem for themselves.

Re:Benchmarks please (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#44275877)

Even worse is there are so many replies yet nothing better than someone hoping for a fast display on a Pi and the usual Wayland ignorant fanboy pretending to be stupid with some speed of light calcs to make fun of me.
I wish these guys would learn about the software they are pushing instead of just parroting something they've heard second hand.

Can I run Wayland on top of X11? (1)

caseih (160668) | about a year ago | (#44270833)

Is it possible to run a Wayland display server in a big full-screen window on X11? That would be a fairly easy way to test wayland out and develop using the wayland GTK or Qt libraries. One huge advantage to this would be that I don't need to wait for driver support. As long as X11 had a driver, I'd be good to go. Since Wayland would be writing through (presumably) openGL to a full screen window, none of X11's asynchronous speed problems would be noticeable; waylands renderings within the window would all be snappy and synchronized. Granted too many layers of redirection could become a problem.

This is a similar idea (stop-gap of course) to what SuSE did years ago with the old Xglx [wikipedia.org] project, which ran on top of X11 and opengl, which was eventually phased out in favor of AIGLX and Xrender.

Re:Can I run Wayland on top of X11? (2)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#44271251)

X11 runs on top of Wayland. I imagine you might be able to run Wayland on X11 by creating a fake screen but it could be brutally slow. Pretty much, yes you have to wait for driver support.

Re:Can I run Wayland on top of X11? (2)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#44275607)

X11 runs on top of Wayland.

X11 can run top of Wayland. It doesn't necessarily.

I imagine you might be able to run Wayland on X11 by creating a fake screen but it could be brutally slow

If you do it badly, sure.

Wayland wants the world to be a collection of draw buffers (i.e. one per window more or less). There's no reason you couldn't simply have one X11 window for each Wayland window. Given it's all GL all the way down and X11 supports pretty much the fastest 3D graphics so far, I don't see why it would be slow.

Re:Can I run Wayland on top of X11? (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#44275923)

I guess that's true. If you wrote a protocol so that each Wayland client believed it was talking to a Wayland compositor while really that was code running on the X-Server, and the X-Server took information from the X-compositor and transformed it into Wayland-compositor messages it would be possible to do that. That's a lot of work though.

I don't think anyone is doing it. So the answer is that's man years that no one intends to spend.

Re:Can I run Wayland on top of X11? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44271271)

Weston will launch fullscreen on X11 which may given you what you want. ./weston --fullscreen

There's a build script for Wayland here which builds it under Debian:
http://www.chaosreigns.com/wayland/buildscript/

I believe arch linux has an AUP for Wayland and Debian sid has binaries for the most recent versions.

Re:Can I run Wayland on top of X11? (2)

Tailhook (98486) | about a year ago | (#44271759)

Yes. Specify the x11-backend.so when starting Weston and it runs on top of X.

Remoteability question restated (5, Interesting)

LaughingRadish (2694765) | about a year ago | (#44271697)

Here's a very simple question with hopefully no wiggle room: Suppose I have two Linux boxes, each running Wayland. They do not run X11 in any form or fashion. I am on the console of one of them and in Wayland. Can I start a terminal emulator, ssh over to the other box, issue a command that starts some graphical program (which uses only Wayland coding, no X11), and expect that program's window to show up on the first box? Assume that ssh has already been modified to allow for this sort of thing. If this cannot be done, what prevents it from being done? I have yet received no complete answer for this.

Re:Remoteability question restated (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44271767)

Currently? Nope. In a few years? yes.

The problem is that unlike X there is no ubiquitus Wayland process sitting on the system managing remote calls, so the modification to SSH or whatever the devs decide to do might be a bite more involved.

Re:Remoteability question restated (2, Informative)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#44271865)

Wayland is going to be implementing some like RDP to handle this. Wayland natively does not handle this. So if your question is in terms of "Wayland as it is likely to exist" then likely you will be able to do it. If your question is "Wayland by itself with none of the supporting ecosystem" no. On the other hand normal screen sharing stuff like VNC would work.

What prevents it from being done is that Wayland applications share their graphical and application buffer. You can't pull it apart without virtualizing the entire screen like VNC.

Re:Remoteability question restated (1)

LaughingRadish (2694765) | about a year ago | (#44272045)

Thanks. This is the most direct answer I've gotten so far. A followup: How much work has been done on that part of the supporting ecosystem to support remoting?

Re:Remoteability question restated (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#44272579)

Lots of experiments and some of the initial testing, more or less a functioning prototype. My opinion is the functional version will be in the next version of KDE/GNOME: KDE 5 and GNOME 4 and that's if all goes reasonably well.

Re:Remoteability question restated (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44272735)

So in about 5 years or so? KDE and GNOME don't do major versions very often, and I don't think either has another major version on the horizon at the moment.

Re:Remoteability question restated (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#44272745)

That would be my guess to you have a genuinely useful remote system rather than cool proof of concepts.

Re:Remoteability question restated (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#44273791)

The last link I found on that was from a couple of years ago where the "more or less a functioning prototype" didn't work at all when he tried out his idea and the developer moved on to other things. Care to provide something that refutes that or is it something completely out of your field?

Re:Remoteability question restated (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#44275951)

sure the port of FreeRDP by Kristian Høgsberg into Wayland is much more recent.

http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/2013-March/007740.html [freedesktop.org]

Re:Remoteability question restated (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#44276221)

Finally some sort of answer! Very ugly and inefficient hack but it's early days so likely to improve. Next how about something along the line of benchmarks like I've been asking for since about six wayland articles ago? Obviously not remote ones since it's far too early, just something about performance feeding pixels to the local video hardware would be nice. Since the argument is about the loss of flexibility being worth the performance gain I don't think that is too much to ask.

I'd better spell it out (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#44276251)

To avoid time wasting trite rubbish light speed of light stuff, what I mean above is the performance in terms of how long it takes for the application to call for something to be drawn, then it going through the layers to the compositor before being sent to the video hardware. I still remain unconvinced by block diagrams that hide internal complexity which is why I keep asking for benchmarks.

Re:Remoteability question restated (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#44273741)

It's something the wayland developers do not consider to be a feature worth implementing at this time so the only answer you'll get are guesses as to how it may be done later. I wish the wayland people would discuss their thing on it's own merits instead of pretending it can do everything that X does better when it really has different aims.

Re:Remoteability question restated (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44275597)

No! The Wayland developer suggests using VNC or a similar Remote Desktop tool for this task.

What you are asking for is called Network Transparency. In Wayland and Mir it is being sacrificed for the sake of looking prettier.

In my opinion, using a Remote Desktop protocol to forward a single application GUI just seems wrong. I don't want to install a full blown Desktop on a machine on which I'll bring up the jmx console every other week for troubleshooting

compeititor? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44271869)

look, it's the succerssor to x.org x11 - the only relevant x11 implementation - by former core x devs. putting mir in the same sentence is just an attempt to 'teach the controversy', creationist-style.

Benchmarks (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#44273897)

Where are the benchmarks to back up all the claims that it is better than X? Even something showing catchup or even a degree of usability would be nice.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?