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 3.10 Is Now Properly Supported On Wayland

timothy posted about a year ago | from the not-just-a-lawn-ornament dept.

GNOME 128

An anonymous reader writes "One week ahead of the GNOME 3.10 release, all of the basic Wayland support for GNOME has been merged. With today's GNOME Shell 3.9.92 release the Wayland branch was merged and there was also an updated Mutter Wayland release, besides earlier GNOME 3.9.x packages fostering the Wayland support. Fedora 20 is expected to ship with GNOME on Wayland as a technology preview. Additional details about the current GNOME Wayland support are available from the GNOME Wiki."

cancel ×

128 comments

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

For those who didn't know... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44874585)

(and didn't want to google it):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayland_%28display_server_protocol%29
http://wayland.freedesktop.org/

Wayland
Wayland is intended as a simpler replacement for X, easier to develop and maintain.

Re:For those who didn't know... (0)

Steve Max (1235710) | about a year ago | (#44874717)

A first post by an AC that's actually useful. That's a FIRST.

Re:For those who didn't know... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44874791)

If you don't know what Wayland is odds are you don't care about this article.

Re:For those who didn't know... (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year ago | (#44874871)

I care about this article as long as xorg.conf goes away sometimes soon.

Re:For those who didn't know... (1, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44874937)

Why?
At least it lets you pick any random modes, try dealing with windows and a monitor that does not support EDID.

Re:For those who didn't know... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44875017)

What about it? You can define and set custom modes in the absense of EDID. It's trivially easy especially using Catalyst, NVIDIA Control Panel or Intel's drivers.

Re:For those who didn't know... (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44875197)

Actually the old catalyst drivers did not support it. All you could have were standard resolutions it felt like providing.

Re:For those who didn't know... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44875303)

Great. How is that at all relevant to anything current?

Re:For those who didn't know... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44876451)

But... but... his 1980s vintage monitor and 1200/75 baud modem will mean that Wayland is useless for him.

How very DARE you.

Re:For those who didn't know... (1)

nonicknameavailable (1495435) | about a year ago | (#44876277)

Wayland wont be supported by Intel, Nvidia, AMD so you are out of luck with the older monitors

Re:For those who didn't know... (1)

Barsteward (969998) | about a year ago | (#44878211)

i thought it was ubuntus' Mir that won't be supported by Intel.

Re:For those who didn't know... (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#44878007)

Uhhhh...you make your own INF for the monitor with something like Powerstrip and be done with it? My KVM switch doesn't support EDID, it took less than 10 minutes to whip off an INF with the correct resolution and push it to my systems, easy peasy and has worked perfectly ever since.

Re:For those who didn't know... (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#44874973)

I care about this article as long as xorg.conf goes away sometimes soon.

Mandatory xorg.conf went away a few years ago. You can still tweak parameters with one if you want to. Are you suggesting removing the ability to tweak it?

Re:For those who didn't know... (3, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | about a year ago | (#44875363)

Mandatory xorg.conf went away a few years ago. You can still tweak parameters with one if you want to. Are you suggesting removing the ability to tweak it?

Must be a Gnome developer. Configurability confuses users, so we make make them write 'extensions' in Javascript instead, etc.

Re:For those who didn't know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44876893)

This concept of "configuwability" confuses and angers us!

Re:For those who didn't know... (2)

Aguazul2 (2591049) | about a year ago | (#44874905)

If you don't know what Wayland is odds are you don't care about this article.

He must be posting for those people who reckon a thing isn't worth investigating until they've heard a hundred mentions to it. Wayland is just now entering these people's consciousness.

Re:For those who didn't know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44874911)

You're probably right. Still, it'd be nice to get enough information to know whether you care for an article or not straight from the summary, and having something on Wayland makes it clear why non-Linux people should care (if Gnome went Wayland-only, it would become Linux-only at least for now).

Besides, a couple of links related to the subject is way better than something to the likes of FR0$T P!S$.

Re:For those who didn't know... (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#44875959)

You may be happy with the exact amount of knowledge you've managed to acquire thus far, but some people actually like finding out about new things. It's why we have "news."

Re:For those who didn't know... (1)

goruka (1721094) | about a year ago | (#44876965)

Why are you stating the obvious? Everyone knows that Wayland is a promising new technology that will revolutionize desktop graphics on Linux.
On the other hand.. I forgot what Gnome is, have a link url for that?

yeah! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44874647)

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those!

Yes! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44874883)

Now I can complain about the user interface on a whole new display technology!

What GTK3 novelties? (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about a year ago | (#44874885)

I wonder if there are new features removed from GTK3, or forced on users, or if GTK3 themes break again. This affects non Gnome 3 users sometimes (e.g. File/Open puts you into "Recently Used", wasting a bit of your time and clicks, in a app that uses GTK3.)

Re:What GTK3 novelties? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#44874943)

This affects non Gnome 3 users sometimes (e.g. File/Open puts you into "Recently Used", wasting a bit of your time and clicks, in a app that uses GTK3.)

Ooohh, is that what it is. Is there a workaround?

Re:What GTK3 novelties? (3, Interesting)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about a year ago | (#44875441)

This affects non Gnome 3 users sometimes (e.g. File/Open puts you into "Recently Used", wasting a bit of your time and clicks, in a app that uses GTK3.)

Ooohh, is that what it is. Is there a workaround?

Here's one that keeps the "Recently Used" category empty. Unfortunately, it does not prevent GTK3 applications from defaulting to that absurd category in a File/Open operation. As a logged-in user, run:

rm ~/.local/share/recently-used.xbel
mkdir -p ~/.config/gtk-3.0
echo -e "[Settings]\ngtk-recent-files-max-age=0\ngtk-recent-files-limit=0" > ~/.config/gtk-3.0/settings.ini
rm ~/.local/share/recently-used.xbel


The second rm will probably cause an error message, unless some application is busily updating the "Recently Used" category while you run these commands.

Re:What GTK3 novelties? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#44876679)

Thank you. It's the defaulting that's the real pain for me; I guess if I cannot fix that it's better to have a chance of the item being in there than not.

I don't know who Gnome thinks they're helping - it's a pain for me and royally confusing for my wife, who is a basic computer user.

Re:What GTK3 novelties? (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | about a year ago | (#44879589)

The "Recently Used" items has always been empty since I first saw it, everywhere. What I'd like to know is how to make it go away forever!

Re:What GTK3 novelties? (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a year ago | (#44875029)

Have they fixed the lack of options for decent previews? Selecting a picture or video by a 20px preview just doesn't cut it anymore.

Re:What GTK3 novelties? (4, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | about a year ago | (#44876415)

Have they fixed the lack of options for decent previews? Selecting a picture or video by a 20px preview just doesn't cut it anymore.

Yes, it's called using KDE.

--
BMO

Re:What GTK3 novelties? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44875071)

(e.g. File/Open puts you into "Recently Used", wasting a bit of your time and clicks, in a app that uses GTK3.)

Even worse, then you Save, you end up in Recently Used.
Try it with, for example, GIMP. Then GIMP tells you: "Please select a folder below"

Re:What GTK3 novelties? (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about a year ago | (#44875525)

(e.g. File/Open puts you into "Recently Used", wasting a bit of your time and clicks, in a app that uses GTK3.)

Even worse, then you Save, you end up in Recently Used. Try it with, for example, GIMP. Then GIMP tells you: "Please select a folder below"

It's even worse, if you're tweaking a web site. The absurd "Recently Used" category is just full of files named index.html, and they're a bunch of different files in different directories (but Gnome conceals the directories or other context, of course). It's one of the reasons I disabled that category on our PCs.

Re:What GTK3 novelties? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44875543)

Got a little sand in your vagina again?

Re:What GTK3 novelties? (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | about a year ago | (#44875727)

There's a bunch of really basic deprecations, including GtkStock (every app will now have to have its own translations of "Cancel" and "OK" for some reason) and GtkActionGroup.

Lots of new code will have to be written to port apps to Gtk 3.10, which makes one wonder if it's worth the upgrade. Normally I update my toolkits because I want new features, not new obligations.

Is Wayland there yet? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#44874915)

GNOME 3 is now at 3.10? Who'd have thunk it?

But how ready is Wayland itself for mainstream release? I know they've gotten as far as version 1, but are any of the distros - Fedora, Debian, Slackware, Gentoo, Arch, et al - near having Wayland ready so that one can install something like GNOME or KDE w/o installing X11, but installing Wayland?

Re:Is Wayland there yet? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44874979)

It's the third sentence in the summary: "Fedora 20 is expected to ship with GNOME on Wayland as a technology preview".

Re:Is Wayland there yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44875315)

Slackware

Slackware will migrate to it when Xorg dies and/or 2 years after everybody else migrated.

Now for proprietary drivers to get on-board! (3, Interesting)

Kernel Corndog (155153) | about a year ago | (#44874955)

No doubt, I am cheering the open source drivers to continue their great progress but I can't understand why Nvidia and AMD don't enable EGL extensions on their desktop drivers (especially AMD since I'm a shareholder because they started supporting open source). With Mir and Wayland needing the extensions, Gabe Newell saying Linux is the future of gaming, and the future of Linux windowing being Mir or Wayland, I'm not going to get super excited until one of the Big Two GPU vendors start supporting it.

And I'm hoping it's you, AMD, that will be the first to claim that crown on Linux. Please let it be in the forthcoming hardware Newell mentioned.

Should have been Gnome 3.11 for Workgroups.. (3, Funny)

DarkOx (621550) | about a year ago | (#44874963)

Really disappointing choice of version numbers.

Re:Should have been Gnome 3.11 for Workgroups.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44875055)

Hurr hurr. That joke be duh funnayiest evar!

Re:Should have been Gnome 3.11 for Workgroups.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44875067)

Hey look, the next Carlos Mencia is amongst us!

Re:Should have been Gnome 3.11 for Workgroups.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44876079)

Are you implying the OP stole this joke?

Re:Should have been Gnome 3.11 for Workgroups.. (3, Funny)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#44876397)

GNOME 3.11 would be the next dev version. But imagine - GNOME 3.11 running on Linux 3.11 - it would be GNOME/Linux for Workgroups 3.11

Re:Should have been Gnome 3.11 for Workgroups.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44879795)

This joke is getting old and tired. Please stop. It's not funny anymore.

Can someone explain this with a car analogy? (1)

sinij (911942) | about a year ago | (#44874969)

Can someone explain this with a car analogy?

Re:Can someone explain this with a car analogy? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44875069)

X11 is like a VW Bug, it's simple to those who understand it but if you're not a mechanic it's just a bunch of greasy parts. Wayland is like a new Smart Car, it's intended to be simpler even but built on new technology and the inner workings are all hidden from the average user. GNOME is the driver and it's been comfortable with its Bug for a long time but is now getting in to the Smart Car but doesn't know how to effectively drive it yet because it has a different transmission. How's that?

Re:Can someone explain this with a car analogy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44875723)

No X11 is a useful tool for getting things done. Kinda of a car with a big trunk and comfortable seats that anyone can operate. On the other hand Wayland is a collection of incompatible after market parts clearly not designed to work together forced in the car by a wannabe mechanic who claims to know more than the car designer and car owners.

Re:Can someone explain this with a car analogy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44876575)

If you actually knew what you're talking about you'd know it's rather the other way around.. X11 being a massive patchwork of kludges is mostly the reason work started on Wayland in the first place.

Re:Can someone explain this with a car analogy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44879563)

No I have compiled X11 from source starting with X11R3 on my Sun 3/60 and know what inside X11. I also tried hard to get Wayland to compile, unfortunately the source from the git repository had a huge number of compile-time errors. Looking at the code it appears to have been written by l33t speakers.

Re:Can someone explain this with a car analogy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44879835)

X11 had better compile, because if there were errors know one would know how to fix them!

Re:Can someone explain this with a car analogy? (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a year ago | (#44875081)

You can now install an electric engine in a Honda Civic.

Re:Can someone explain this with a car analogy? (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#44875183)

Electric Motor! Not engine.

Re: Can someone explain this with a car analogy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44875267)

Electric -engine-. While I acknowledge the term is technically incorrect, it both gets the point across and serves to irritate people like you.

Which makes it a sure winner in my book.

Re:Can someone explain this with a car analogy? (2)

ssam (2723487) | about a year ago | (#44875145)

When Xcar was made everyone lived in a forest. The Xcar need to have its own built in machete to get anywhere, plus a built in oil well and refinery to make fuel and 14 different types of wheels. Now we all live in high-rise apartments, so we put the widgets the boot (er, thats 'trunk' for americans) and cram the car with all its blades, drills and distillation towers into the lift (elevator) to get to the display.

Wayland car is roller-skates and a shoulder bag, just enough to skate down the hall to the lift.

The GNOME widgets now fit neatly into the shoulder bag. before you had to have a fake boot (xwayland) that strapped to your back.

Re:Can someone explain this with a car analogy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44875833)

You got it a little backwards. Xcar has a large trunk and comfortable seats, nothing spectacular but dependable. Xcar has lots of mechanics who know how to fix Xcar and Xcar comes with book that describes how to fix the Xcar and what tools you need to fix it. Wayland is an uncomfortable undependable Fisher-Price toy car that cann't be repaired without shipping the entire thing back to the factory at 10x what a new one would cost.

Re:Can someone explain this with a car analogy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44875211)

X is a highly modified Yugo. Yeah it kinda works but it's a pain to maintain because only a handful of people understand the construction.

Wayland is a Model S.

Re:Can someone explain this with a car analogy? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44875365)

Imagine the community has been driving a good old Volkswagen van from the 70's, is reliable but a little quirky and is starting to show its age. Many people don't see a good reason to replace it, it has been doing what is supposed to do, rarely fails and everybody uses it in a way or another. Some other people don't like all the things that are redundant (for example there is a dashboard hidden behind more modern plywood dashboards), some recent its step learning curve compared to more modern cars (its a stick), and some other just want a new flashy car.

So two teams rushed ion a solution of their own to replace something isn't quite broken yet with two things are not entirely done yet.

Now make GNOME work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44875083)

... how about getting GNOME functional again ? All this eyecandy fuzz simply pisses me off. Whenever I move my mouse to the hotcorners (because I want to do some other stuff like selecting entries in a menu) the entire window zoomes into expose. Kind of really annoying.

Re:Now make GNOME work (2, Interesting)

Arker (91948) | about a year ago | (#44875159)

Yeah, dont hold your breath on that. They are pretty much committed to the line that their interface is great, it's you users that suck, and need to be shipped off for re-education if you dont like it.

In reality it's a trainwreck that epitomises what you can get out of a large group of 'designers' who dont have any real work to do.

The larger question I have, and asked many times before without getting any sort of satisfying answer is - what does Wayland provide that X cannot? X is mostly well tested very mature tech and it seems to work fine, and provide MORE not less capability than Wayland.

NIH syndrome?

Re:Now make GNOME work (2)

Microlith (54737) | about a year ago | (#44875511)

what does Wayland provide that X cannot?

X is mostly well tested very mature tech and it seems to work fine, and provide MORE not less capability than Wayland.

X11/Xorg is very well tested but largely misses the point on current platforms, if it's not outright causing problems and forcing workarounds.

Re:Now make GNOME work (2)

Alomex (148003) | about a year ago | (#44876161)

X is mostly well tested very mature tech and it seems to work fine,

[citation needed] ....unless you want to concede that Windows 8 "seems to work fine" too.

Re:Now make GNOME work (4, Informative)

Dimwit (36756) | about a year ago | (#44875557)

It's not that Wayland does a whole bunch that X doesn't, it's that X has a lot more hoops to jump through to keep going. Wayland just presents what amounts of a framebuffer and a simple protocol to let the compositor and clients communicate about size changes, movement, available displays, etc.

All of the modern graphical environments and applications are using the COMPOSITE extension to X, which adds an extra step to a lot of graphical operations. Plus, to be "X", you have to support things like the old X line-drawing primitives, fonts in the server, and other things that simply aren't used anymore. Important things like changing the screen resolution are kept in protocol extensions that you have to check for before using. Large amounts of code and protocol are dedicated to working with screens of vastly different capabilities - everything from monochrome monitors to "true color" displays. Nobody has a fixed-sized monochrome X terminal anymore, but the code has to account for it still.

Plus X stores a ton of things in the server, making it big, slow, and a source of potential security/information disclosure issues. Wayland stores less and does less.

In other words, developers are hamstrung having to maintain and work around lots and lots of very old code that will never, ever be used by a new application, ever, but has to be there, even though it slows things down, takes up space, and makes things more complicated.

Personally, I would've liked to have seen something more like "make COMPOSITE a part of the core X protocol and deprecate lots of things" and see X slowly evolve into a more "modern" system, but that's just me.

As for GNOME - I realize that GNOME 3 is different from GNOME 2, but I'm at least happy that for once the Open Source community *tried something different* instead of just aping Windows or Mac OS X (though GNOME 3 is obviously inspired by the latter). Maybe it worked, maybe it didn't, but at least we can claim to attempt to lead, instead of just blindly following.

Re:Now make GNOME work (1)

Arker (91948) | about a year ago | (#44875989)

This is interesting, you see, I have heard this before. There's a lot of handwaving about having to support old programs that YOU dont use anymore (which you equate to NO ONE uses anymore, incorrectly, but I digress) but you dont give me a single concrete example where this has actually caused any sort of problem. I dont hack the xorg code to say myself but I have heard people that should know telling me that while there is a ton of legacy code the maintainers have to check occasionally, it's not a big deal for them, and it doesnt affect anyone else. The only bit in here that I know to be true is that it increases disk requirements but then again it seems to me like if disk space came up in the context of a discussion about using a WM vs a DE, you would be one of the ones calling me an idiot for caring about disk space in this day and age.

In my experience the only thing that makes X slow is unsupported hardware. Which is understandable. On systems where the necessary support is implemented it tends to run faster than Windows/Mac/Slowaris or whatever else the computer can run. I havent seen any convincing evidence that the performance hit from backward compatibility or from the extra abstraction layer (which permits remote X among other things) is very significant at all. And it's not like this is really stuff no one uses. Thinking that is just myopic.

Yes, X12 might have been better (1)

amaurea (2900163) | about a year ago | (#44877019)

I agree. The Wayland developers have convincingly argued that X11 is a broken heap of cruft, and non-backwards compatible changes seem to be needed to fix that. But as you say, that could be done by updating the protocol itself. Judging from the X version number, that has happened many times in the past, but somehow we've gotten stuck at version 11 for a long while now. Make X13 or X14 the redesigned version with all the cruft removed, and use the versions between there as a deprecation buffer.

Re:Yes, X12 might have been better (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44877713)

That is possible, however it adds a burden of additional development and maintenance. Also X is an ugly, partly outdated and complex API that nobody uses directly, not to mention that some of the forgotten API's might have vulnerabilities (there are Xorg exploits found from time to time). Wayland will run the accompanying X server as unprivileged process, on demand. Eventually most apps will move away from it to Wayland (the only reason not to is maybe to run on both Ubuntu's Mir and Wayland but apps can be ported to both). I expect that it will not take long to switch most of the common OSS apps, and many already support Wayland protocol automatically through toolkits. Remaining can keep running on XWayland (like some old binary apps, games).

The whole Linux graphics stack has been rearchitected in recent years and the next obvious step was to replace X with something better.

Re:Yes, X12 might have been better (2)

raxx7 (205260) | about a year ago | (#44879345)

X11 was introduced in 1986 and was not backwards compatible with X10.
So, it has happened in the (very distant) past, but not as you may think it did.

It's not possible to achieve what Wayland strives to achieve and keep X any more than Wayland does, unless you're satisfied with simply calling the Wayland protocol "X12" and be done with it.

There are two main problems.
First, there are problems in the X11 server/client protocol that can only be fixed by creating a new major extension, where a client connects and says "I'm a X12 client and I swear I won't ever speak X11 to you", and the X12 protocol would look awfully like Wayland.

Second, there are problems with the X11 model of display server (X.org), window manager/compositor (Mutter (GnomeShell), Compiz (Unity), Kwin, Enlightenment etc, etc ) and clients.
Wayland fixes those problems by merging the role of the display server and of the compositor are merged into the same piece of software, the Wayland compositor.
That has a number of advantages (better performance, the compositor has full control over the input the clients get) but it's only feasible because, due to the simplicity of the Wayland protocol, writing a Wayland compositor can be not much harder than writing a X compositor.
This is not feasible if we were to try and write compositors which also act as an X11 server, due to the sheer size and complexity imposed by the X11 protocol (core + modern extensions).

The Wayland architecture is much cleaner and much more feasible.
We'll have several Wayland compositors (Mutter, KWin, Enlightenment, etc), which are only burdened with speaking the Wayland protocol to Wayland clients.
And a modified X.org rootless X server (Xwayland), which is also a Wayland client, will support X11 applications (as good or better than before).

Re:Now make GNOME work (3, Interesting)

rahvin112 (446269) | about a year ago | (#44877483)

They couldn't fix X. The developers behind wayland looked at what it would take to do the same thing they are doing but do it with updates to the X code. They saw a process that would take 20 years rather than 5.

X has 20+ years of legacy code, on a modern X install you are using at best 5% of the code. When you've reached a point where 95% of the code and application isn't even being used it's time to start over rather than work to upgrade what you have. You would spend so much time troubleshooting old code that you could literally rewrite the entire thing 4 times before you finish.

Wayland is designed like a modern interface that is used on almost every other OS. It's designed to be as simple as possible while being extensible. It isn't trying to be anything but a channel for programs to talk to graphics hardware. X was everything and the kitchensink as you said everything from drawing lines on vector displays to keyboard and mouse. X was a monster that's time to deprecate and replace.

Re:Now make GNOME work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44878325)

I realize that GNOME 3 is different from GNOME 2, but I'm at least happy that for once the Open Source community *tried something different* instead of just aping Windows or Mac OS X (though GNOME 3 is obviously inspired by the latter). Maybe it worked, maybe it didn't, but at least we can claim to attempt to lead, instead of just blindly following.

There are two problems with this. The first is that, as you point out, GNOME 3 isn't really trying something new and different: it's following the same path tabletwards as OS X. The second is that new and different doesn't necessarily mean better: the huge backlash against GNOME 3 is a strong indication that, in this case, it's worse. In fact, I think this is a great indication of the strength of open source: if Microsoft introduces a new interface in Windows 8, you've got no choice, but with open source there'll always be someone to fork the project and give you your preferred option, if enough people agree with you.

If you want a better example of open source doing something new and different, that's both an improvement on the old system and unprecedented by commercial software (and, in fact, now imitated by them), the biggest and most obvious one is package management (yum, apt, etc.). "App markets" are very much a monetarised derivative of these.

Re:Now make GNOME work (1)

sharklasers (3047537) | about a year ago | (#44879665)

but I'm at least happy that for once the Open Source community *tried something different* instead of just aping Windows or Mac OS X (though GNOME 3 is obviously inspired by the latter). Maybe it worked, maybe it didn't, but at least we can claim to attempt to lead, instead of just blindly following.

At this stage of my life I can honestly say I don't care about attempts at being different, just for the sake of being different. Execution is far more important. I'd rather a copycat of Windows/OS X which had more features and was overall better and more versatile (GNOME 2), than something which was completely new and hard to establish a comfortable workflow with (GNOME 3 - well, Gnome Shell specifically).

Being different is not a virtue if the outcome is rubbish.

Re:Now make GNOME work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44880013)

"All of the modern graphical environments and applications are using the COMPOSITE extension to X, which adds an extra step to a lot of graphical operations. "

Yes because "designers" don't have to contribute except creating more "themes" and creating effects for switching windows. Compiz is example of what happens when "designers" are let loose. Completely worthless and a burden on the system regardless of how the windowing is done, but boy does it do eyecandy!

"Nobody has a fixed-sized monochrome X terminal anymore, but the code has to account for it still"

Unless you have a large fixed-sized monochrome monitor for looking a X-ray films. By the way there were very very very few X terminals. The term you are looking for is monitor or lcd panel

Re:Now make GNOME work (5, Informative)

raxx7 (205260) | about a year ago | (#44876051)

Check this presentation by Daniel Stone (one of the X.org developers) on the problems with X.~

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIctzAQOe44

Re:Now make GNOME work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44877627)

I used up my mod points already tonight, (and hence AC) but that was one of the best explanations of why we need !X for the future, whether that be Wayland Mir od whatever. Thank you!

Re:Now make GNOME work (1)

Alomex (148003) | about a year ago | (#44876217)

The larger question I have, and asked many times before without getting any sort of satisfying answer is - what does Wayland provide that X cannot? X is mostly well tested very mature tech and it seems to work fine, and provide MORE not less capability than Wayland.

Anybody who has looked in the innards of X knows its a pig. No secret there. It's only Unix fanbois that cannot fathom that some parts of Unix were not properly designed from inception.

Most of those have been patched over the years (e.g. security which initially was non-existent, internationalization, which still lags Windows/Mac but is closing in). X is one of the few remaining *big* mistakes in Unix. It was designed with the wrong philosophy and overtaken by actual usage. Wayland is an effort to clean up and refactor the code.

Re:Now make GNOME work (3, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | about a year ago | (#44877083)

Anybody who has looked in the innards of X knows its a pig. No secret there. It's only Unix fanbois that cannot fathom that some parts of Unix were not properly designed from inception.

At 15:19, David Stone has a nice slide that says:
xserver 1.0.2: 879,403 lines of code
xserver (now): 562,678 lines of code

That's 300,000+ lines of cruft they wiped out without breaking the X protocol. Wayland is currently about 20,000 lines of code, that's about 3.5% the size. Even if that doubles they're still getting rid of 90%+ of the old code, that's huge.

Re:Now make GNOME work (0)

markjhood2003 (779923) | about a year ago | (#44878027)

X is one of the few remaining *big* mistakes in Unix. It was designed with the wrong philosophy and overtaken by actual usage. Wayland is an effort to clean up and refactor the code.

X was ahead of its time and nothing ever caught up to it. It was designed around the idea that all the resources of the network should be seamlessly accessible from a single user's desktop, and embodied the old Internet ideal of ubiquitous peer-to-peer connectivity (still perfectly reasonable and incredibly useful on a secure LAN). Wayland is an effort to make it easier to develop eye-candy user interfaces for consumers and throw out any functionality that gets in the way of that goal. It's totally appropriate for mobile but unnecessary and counter-productive for the desktop.

If you want to talk about really big mistakes in Unix, and computing in general, take a look at the modern web browser and the development environment that it requires. Doing anything interesting on the web requires an unholy mix of technologies and infrastructure like JavaScript, PHP, HTML, XML, CSS, cookies, DOM, BOM and all the interfaces between them. What we really need is a Wayland for the Web, not a Wayland that destroys much of what is stable and functional in Unix.

Re:Now make GNOME work (4, Insightful)

Alomex (148003) | about a year ago | (#44878149)

X was so "ahead of its time" that its entire architecture was dumped in version 10 to give way to X11, and then it remained so far ahead of its time that to this day NextOS, MacOS, Android and Windows have yet to adopt a single thing from it, contrary to the rest of Unix most of which has made its way into those operating systems.

And no, it was not designed to access resources from the desktop. It was mainly designed so that you could use a dumb terminal to access your server. When it became clear that was pie on the sky, instead of redesigning the turd, they just added layer upon layer of cruft, so you ended up with a dumb as doornails protocol running on a heavy weight, expensive "dumb" terminal.

Wayland is an effort to remove those layers of cruft that nobody uses (Xtoolkit?)

Lastly the web browser has nothing to do with Unix. It is platform independent. The fact that you think the web==unix shows how little you know about deep OS architecture.

Re:Now make GNOME work (0, Troll)

markjhood2003 (779923) | about a year ago | (#44879897)

X was so "ahead of its time" that its entire architecture was dumped in version 10 to give way to X11, and then it remained so far ahead of its time that to this day NextOS, MacOS, Android and Windows have yet to adopt a single thing from it, contrary to the rest of Unix most of which has made its way into those operating systems.

Mac OS X, Android and Windows are consumer operating systems, for which eye-candy UIs are considered more important than network transparency. Their remote connectivity needs are limited to accessing corporate Web, cloud, and IT services, not other peers on the network.

NeXT was a great OS that used Display Postscript as the rendering engine, but it was also wrapped in a networked desktop environment, NextStep, and used with X11 and NeWS as well (Sun's Network Extensible Window System). I did find NextStep and NeWS superior to X11 and it's a damn shame they didn't succeed (although NextStep evolved into OS X, and Applie did include a rootless X11 implementation with it until Mountain Lion).

As for other companies, there were entire industry consortiums dedicated to expanding X and Unix, such as X/Open and the Open Software Foundation: these included companies like AT&T, DEC, Unisys, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Sun, Prime, and Apollo.

And no, it was not designed to access resources from the desktop. It was mainly designed so that you could use a dumb terminal to access your server. When it became clear that was pie on the sky, instead of redesigning the turd, they just added layer upon layer of cruft, so you ended up with a dumb as doornails protocol running on a heavy weight, expensive "dumb" terminal.

The dumb terminal at that time was a VT100. X was designed to run on bitmapped displays. Although there were such bitmapped terminals available at the time, X mostly ran on engineering workstations. You didn't usually use it access a server (although you could); rather, other networked peers used it to display a UI on your local X display. I'm not sure why you think that is "pie in the sky" since it worked and continues to work rather well. Part of the reason for that was because the protocol was rich enough to transmit graphics primitives at a higher level than a bitmap. Nothing dumb about it.

Lastly the web browser has nothing to do with Unix. It is platform independent. The fact that you think the web==unix shows how little you know about deep OS architecture.

Don't be silly, I'm not conflating the Web with Unix. Sure, web browsers are supported by most computing platforms. But the web browser's roots in Unix go way back to NextStep and the beginnings of the Internet, at that time mostly Unix-based, and the web browser remains a central and crucial component of desktop Linux. My main point was that cleaning up web browser architecture would be vastly more useful and relevant than replacing a stable and functional part of Linux with something that is less useful, but prettier.

Re:Now make GNOME work (4, Insightful)

Alomex (148003) | about a year ago | (#44880035)

The dumb terminal at that time was a VT100.

By dumb terminal I mean a thin client, something that didn't happen.

X mostly ran on engineering workstations.

Not by design dude. It was meant to run on thin clients but it ended up being such a pig that you needed a workstation to run it. At the time a "thin" X-client was more expensive that a PC.

I'm not sure why you think that is "pie in the sky" since it worked and continues to work rather well.

So a protocol designed to run on a cheap thin client ends up needing a powerful workstation to run and you call it "working rather well"? With those definitions it's no wonder you consider X a success.

Part of the reason for that was because the protocol was rich enough to transmit graphics primitives at a higher level than a bitmap. Nothing dumb about it.

No one uses such primitives because they are incredibly sucky. Hence VNC and such.

I did find NextStep and NeWS superior to X11 and it's a damn shame they didn't succeed

Of course, anything was better than X11. Steve Jobs famously declared "X11 is brain dead".

Re:Now make GNOME work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44878867)

what does Wayland provide that X cannot?

the real story behind Wayland and X

from: http://people.freedesktop.org/~daniels/lca2013-wayland-x11.pdf

"Programming X is like reading one of those french philoshophers where afterwards you start wondering whether you really know anything for sure [Thomas Thurman]"

"sidenote: three people on this earth understand X input; really wish I wasn't one of them"

Was this supposed to be good news ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44875095)

Gnome3 - Just another reason to not want to try wayland.

How about GTK+3 for Win32? (1)

Nimey (114278) | about a year ago | (#44875111)

Still no stable binary release of GTK+3 for Win32. Any word on when that's happening?

Re:How about GTK+3 for Win32? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44875123)

Just use Qt you dumb faggot.

Re:How about GTK+3 for Win32? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44875667)

http://www.tarnyko.net/dl/

I use this to develop GTK+3 applications with MinGW. Everything works fine.

Okay, that's half-way there. (3, Insightful)

Minwee (522556) | about a year ago | (#44875175)

More importantly, when will we see GNOME 2 support?

Re:Okay, that's half-way there. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44876299)

Probably never, unless you add it.

Personally I'll just use gnome-classic.

But in fact it's NOT properly supported. (3, Interesting)

tlambert (566799) | about a year ago | (#44875271)

But in fact it's NOT properly supported.

If you read the wiki that the article poster linked to, there are all sorts of caveats and missing functionality. "Properly Supported" means functional parity, and from where it sits right now, there is not functional parity.

Re:But in fact it's NOT properly supported. (1)

Desler (1608317) | about a year ago | (#44875371)

"Properly Supported" means functional parity

New to Gnome development, eh?

Wary of tabletication (2)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#44875457)

Don't care about Wayland. I gave Intel my money, and in return they have 30 Developers, that have given me an astonishing return on my hardware. Hell they can still use X as far as I'm concerned.

I do care about the Gnome Shell and how to kill it with fire...I currently use Cinnamon, but do not want to continue to patch my Desktop , and I do care if Gnome is going to (continue) to cripple my Desktop experience. these two articles http://worldofgnome.org/gnome-upcoming-features/ [worldofgnome.org] http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2013/08/gnome-core-app-project-make-me-excited-for-desktop-linux [omgubuntu.co.uk] show off the new core applications Maps, Music, Photos, Software & Calendar...ans they look great, only it looks like oversized icons/Buttons; "not over-burdened with features"; "built around the premise of ‘finding and reminding’ you of your files". Yeah I am nervous too.

How about they expand on evince(a fantastic program on any platform) by giving it epub compatibility. Rhythmbox has just been updated codename "I Eat Tapes" http://worldofgnome.org/rhythmbox-3-0-is-eating-the-tapes/ [worldofgnome.org] which is looking great after being much neglected for Banshee(Which was great) in the Mono push to satisfy some self serving... anyway great; modern looking; desktop app, not even mentioned. Hopefully I can finally get rid of the awesome Tomboy notes with Notes(Bijiben) ready so I can ditch Mono altogether (Cue that self serving prick to spout crap to retain reverence soon).

The bottom line is I don't want my Desktop experience Tabletified. There is a great hybrid touch/keyboard+mouse interface in here somewhere, and some great ideas, but my main computer is not about find...its about organising files not search; Sensible user of a 24" screen and accurate pointing devices (and I include pen too); Feature rich presented sensibly with good defaults...only removing unnecessary "options". There is something great here, but Gnome is taking too long at fitting the pieces together.

Re:Wary of tabletication (1)

sayfawa (1099071) | about a year ago | (#44878585)

I agree with everything you say except the part where you have to care what Gnome is doing. XFCE has helped me not care about Gnome for about 3 years now. It's not as feature rich or polished as the last versions of Gnome 2, but it's getting there.

Wait, Evince can't even read EPUB? (1)

Phil Urich (841393) | about a year ago | (#44878899)

Not to be the KDE fanboy here, but Okular has been able to do that since . . . I dunno, whenever many years ago I first tried clicking on an EPUB.

At this point it almost seems like classic GNOME fans might be better off using KDE and themeing/fiddling with it to make it look and behave how they want. And KDE doesn't even make you write Javascript extentions to do any of that, it's all in the actual UI to customize it . . .

And to speak of Tabletification . . . (1)

Phil Urich (841393) | about a year ago | (#44879013)

I really do think the KDE devs are going about it the right way, leveraging the Model-View paradigm to make it so most of the code can remain the same but the UI/UX can be changed for different circumstances. So if you do install on a tablet, you can have a full-screen launcher and nice finger-friendly icons and such, running what are underneath completely compatible programs. But if you run a desktop, you have the full and unfiltered desktop experience. You don't really have to sacrifice one for the other (well, the tablet side is taking a bit to entirely come together, but that's mostly hardware support, and if we're going to sacrifice either I'm sure we're all fine with our Android tablets or whatnot in the meantime, no need to muck up the desktop).

I'm typing this from a KDE install right now, loving Lancelot Launcher [fomentgroup.org] and Yakuake [wikipedia.org] , and pitying my Windows-using colleagues when they don't have tabs, split-views or SFTP support in their file managers (and chuckling a bit about their Windows 8 angst). There were some scary and awkward times in the beginning of the KDE4 transition, but these days KDE is back to be stable and solid, and whatever layout and behaviour you want you can pretty much do it (the mere thought of which must drive the GNOME devs into panic attacks).

Ut oh.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44875611)

serviscope_minor [slashdot.org] is going to be really pissed now. Expect major trolling from him in 3...2...1...

Gnome 3, worst desktop, ever. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44875653)

To bad gnome 3 is the worst thing since the Windows 8 user interface.

I used gnome 3 for the first time today, it is worse than Windows 8. I believed Canonical would be worse than gnome 3 like most people at slashdot probably because it wanted to do its own thing. I have used both Canonical and gnome 3. Canonical is extremely bad, but vanilla gnome 3 is even worse.

Why do Linux desktop/window manager developers want to emulate Microsoft windows? If you want to steal things try and steal from someone like Apple, please.

You clearly are confused (2)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#44875767)

Why do Linux desktop/window manager developers want to emulate Microsoft windows? If you want to steal things try and steal from someone like Apple, please.

There is no Linux windows manager that follows a tile/wiget/wall paradigm. Apple OSX is basically the old desktop paradigm which is the same as Gnome+Cinnamon; XFCE; KDE etc etc although is starting to go iOS round the edges.

Re:You clearly are confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44877943)

But gnome is following the "there is no way to start an application from the desktop" paradigm of windows 8.
But to be honest at least Windows 8 didn't do the "You can't even select a window from some sort of task bar" paradigm of gnome 3.

Thank you Ubuntu! (3, Informative)

Drunkulus (920976) | about a year ago | (#44875859)

This is a great leap forward for desktop Linux and we must remember the open source luminaries that have made this advance possible, starting with Mr. Mark Shuttleworth. Mark committed to making significant contributions to Wayland back in 2010, and generously offered to support KDE and Gnome in the transition. Wait, what? They never contributed a single line of code? They were secretly working on another project and are now in a pissing match with Intel??

You're welcome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44877647)

It wouldn't have been possible to pull off Wayland if not for the throngs of dedicated Wayland-devs working their butts off 24/7 for 5 years to realize their vision. Wait, what? They were sitting on their asses holding their dicks until the looming threat of a bruised ego compelled them to actually get any work done? Well waddayuknow...

Credit where credit is due dipshit. If not for Canonical you could've been waiting for another 5 years to see any progress. I may not agree on the clandestine nature of their reveal, but the ensuing hatred was blown out of proportion.

Re:You're welcome! (1)

Drunkulus (920976) | about a year ago | (#44878153)

Thanks to Mr. Coward, I have seen the light. It is clear to me now that Canonical is essentially an open source Machiavelli, manipulating other players such as Redhat and Intel with ease. The Wayland devs, shamed into action, are now producing the next generation display server which Canonical will then use instead of their Trojan Horse display server.

"Bloated, fragmented and space consuming" (1)

mutube (981006) | about a year ago | (#44876235)

My favourite bit of the linked article...

The upper right area of Gnome Shellâ(TM)s top panel contained four separate items with their corresponding menus used for configuring sound, internet connections, power and user settings. This was bloated, fragmented and space consuming especially in the case of using extensions that need space on the right.

A new status menu that unifies all the above individual settings in one was imperative and we got it on 3.10!

...directly above a screenshot showing the top panel in question - which is 80% empty space.

Seems you can justify anything in UI design if you include the magic words "bloated, fragmented and space consuming" in your rationale.

I DON'T LIKE CHANGE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44877397)

You heard it.

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>