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!

XWayland Aiming For Glamor Support, Merge Next X.Org Release

Unknown Lamer posted about 7 months ago | from the almost-there dept.

Graphics 83

An anonymous reader writes that XWayland is nearly ready to be merged into the main X.org tree "X.Org Server 1.16 this summer should support XWayland, the means of allowing X11 applications to run atop Wayland-based compositors without the need for any application/game changes. With the revised design, XWayland has generic 2D acceleration over OpenGL and a cleaner design compared to earlier revisions. With GNOME 3.12 having better Wayland support and Plasma Next around the corner, it looks like 2014 could be the year of Wayland's take-off!" The patch series emails have more details. The big news here is that XWayland is ditching its old DDX model for one based on Glamor. eliminating the need for any X.org drivers to be written to support X11 on Wayland: "Finally, the last patch adds the Xwayland DDX. Initially Xwayland was an Xorg module that exposed an API for Xorg video drivers to hook into so that we could reuse the native 2D acceleration. Now that glamor is credible and still improving, a much better approach is to make Xwayland its own DDX and use glamor for acceleration. A lot of the code in the Xorg approach was busy preventing Xorg being Xorg, eg, preventing VT access, preventing input driver loading, preventing drivers doing modesetting. The new DDX in contrast is straight-forward, clean code, only 2500 lines of code and neatly self-contained." It does not yet have direct rendering or any acceleration, but those patches should come soon.

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

HALLELUJAH! (4, Funny)

krewemaynard (665044) | about 7 months ago | (#46585607)

The Year of the Linux Desktop is upon us!

Re:HALLELUJAH! (3, Informative)

H0p313ss (811249) | about 7 months ago | (#46585623)

The Year of the Linux Desktop is upon us!

Again?

Re:HALLELUJAH! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46587601)

It comes every year.

Re:HALLELUJAH! (1)

sonamchauhan (587356) | about 7 months ago | (#46591513)

It'll never come, but the year of the Linux Palmtop is upon us.

Happy Year of Linux on the Desktop from The Golden (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46585643)

Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.

And if you threw a party
Invited everyone you knew
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
And the card attached would say, thank you for being a friend.

Re:HALLELUJAH! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46585907)

I really hope this is sarcasm / parody. People have been predicting "the year of the Linux Desktop" since 1999. And it's still not here. Someday it will be, but prematurely declaring something just makes you look .... yeah you get the idea.

Re:HALLELUJAH! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46585995)

What's a "desktop" grandpa?

Re:HALLELUJAH! (1)

fishybell (516991) | about 7 months ago | (#46586457)

Ironically, in the post-desktop era, UNIX started out the leader, with Linux fairly quickly taking a commanding percentage of deployments. It is now Microsoft who is so far behind that the odds seem insurmountable.

Desktop computer explained (1)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#46587355)

A desktop computer is a computer that hooks up to a TV and is controlled with a mouse instead of touch. It lets you do two things that most tablet computers can't do. One is split the screen so that you can have two or more things showing at once, so that the calculator app doesn't need to cover everything else up. The other is let you make apps. You know all these apps you run on your tablet? Someone made them on a desktop computer. There are also laptops, which look like a tablet with a keyboard but run the same apps as a desktop computer.

(Pedants: Yes, AIDE exists, and Samsung multiwindow mode exists, and Windows RT has Snap, but they're outliers. Let me know when XCode runs on iPad or Visual Studio runs on Surface RT or other Android device manufacturers adopt Samsung's multiwindow extensions.)

Awesome quote in TFS: (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 7 months ago | (#46585627)

"It does not yet have direct rendering or any acceleration, but those patches should come soon."

How many projects are in the same state?

Re:Awesome quote in TFS: (0)

jones_supa (887896) | about 7 months ago | (#46585681)

That is why I hate open source sometimes: too many parts missing or unoptimized. Still waiting for proper vectorized TRIM support for Linux kernel, instead of it trimming each sector individually.

Re:Awesome quote in TFS: (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46585737)

That is why I hate open source sometimes: too many parts missing or unoptimized. Still waiting for proper vectorized TRIM support for Linux kernel, instead of it trimming each sector individually.

So roll up your sleaves and get to work. It's not like you don't have access to the source. Oh, you want someone else to do the work for you? Then pony up some cash, or crawl back to the proprietary cave you crawled out of.

Re:Awesome quote in TFS: (0)

jones_supa (887896) | about 7 months ago | (#46585789)

I already mostly use commercial software.

Re:Awesome quote in TFS: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46585887)

Another option is to donate to projects or paying developers working on things you want/need. If commercial software fills your needs then use that option. But...

The issue with half/non-existant support is not an open source issue, it is a programming issue. You do get what you pay for in that sense - You just wouldnt buy a commercial project not supporting you requirements (plenty commercial options exists that do not fully implement every feature/function/standard used in the given problem-space)

Re:Awesome quote in TFS: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46585965)

Open source and commercial is not mutually exclusive. If you are paying just because it makes something "not open souce" you are a fool.

Re:Awesome quote in TFS: (0)

jones_supa (887896) | about 7 months ago | (#46586319)

That is technically true, but in practice they are mutually exclusive.

Re:Awesome quote in TFS: (1)

Hategrin (3579025) | about 7 months ago | (#46591029)

And in practice the lack of functionality and apps made for GNU platforms has a-lot to do with GNU licensing. Maybe if the FOSS "movement" wasn't so aggressively anti-capitalism (aka copyleft) that wouldn't be the case.

Re:Awesome quote in TFS: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591375)

capitalism is where the means of production are in private hands (and no, the social megastructures that are multinationals don't count as private, merely non-government, which is not the same thing)

FOSS licences requiring that the code (i.e the means of production for copies of a program) are to be available, how is that anti-capitalist?

Re:Awesome quote in TFS: (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 7 months ago | (#46591467)

Because it's hard to make a buck in software when the genie is out of the bottle.

Re:Awesome quote in TFS: (1)

The123king (2395060) | about 7 months ago | (#46588223)

Main issue with open source software: Stuff only gets written if someone wants to write it.

Main issue with proprietary software: Stuff always gets written even if the programmer is incompetent

Re:Awesome quote in TFS: (1)

GreyWolf3000 (468618) | about 7 months ago | (#46590189)

I'm the opposite. I can't stand lacking the ability to dig in and change software when I don't like the way it works. It's rare that I actually do, but there's a huge freedom I get from knowing that when I need to extend the software, I can.

It's common for commercial software to not do what I want it to, either. I'd love to have a working amazon instant video client for my Android phone.

Re:Awesome quote in TFS: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46585911)

The proprietary cave has working software and a dessert bar.

Re:Awesome quote in TFS: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46587483)

Of course it's easy to wait for others to do the work for you and complain about how long it's taking. You even conveniently have the excuse that many of the devs working on it could be being paid, as they work on Linux as part of their regular jobs. So OSS has it all: you get to wait for someone else to do everything, complain about how long it's taking, ultimately pay little or nothing for it, and still get modded up for adding nothing of value to the effort.

Re:Awesome quote in TFS: (1)

Hategrin (3579025) | about 7 months ago | (#46591053)

Because someone who pays for software instead of writing it themselves a "whiner", when all they're doing is saying they prefer to pay for software that works instead of hiring a contractor (10 - 50k sounds about right for a substantial result) to make FOSS software functional. I wonder, did you build your car from metal you smelted mined from your back yard or are you just a crybaby that participates in an economy?

Keep rewriting the compositor, keep compatibility (1)

Kremmy (793693) | about 7 months ago | (#46585729)

I'll keep using my working computer.

Working computers stop working eventually (1)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#46587415)

Until your working computer no longer works because A. its hardware fails, or B. operating system and web browser makers no longer issue security updates compatible with your computer.

Re:Working computers stop working eventually (1)

Kremmy (793693) | about 7 months ago | (#46587585)

Hardware failure can't be avoided, but I think we can do better on the software side of things. I mean, if the Wayland project keeps going strong and the efforts to Not Break Everything keep progressing, we could end up with a case where X.org simply has a Wayland driver and while all the issues that can exist may exist, we can bypass a lot of the heartache if the project continues going smoothly. This article gives me hope that we're not destroying everything in this process.

FUCK OFF MICHAEL LARABEL (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46585767)

nt

Glamor acceleration (1)

malevo (952162) | about 7 months ago | (#46585783)

It does not yet have direct rendering or any acceleration, but those patches should come soon.

The patch series emails have more details. The big news here is that XWayland is ditching its old DDX model for one based on Glamor. eliminating the need for any X.org drivers to be written to support X11 on Wayland:

Glamor provides 2d acceleration using openGL.

Re:Glamor acceleration (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46586899)

Actually some of the 2d acceleration is quite deficient

Re:Glamor acceleration (1)

Kremmy (793693) | about 7 months ago | (#46587675)

This part kind of aggravates me, honestly. There's a chicken-and-egg problem when it comes to diddling with every relevant part of the stack and how they communicate with the driver layers. The most important part as far as maintaining compatibility and supporting existing systems is making it so that common (legacy is the wrong word) API layers continue to function utilizing the new back-ends, but the logistics of where that begins and ends are very much in flux with this development process. OpenGL is a natural, obvious solution with regard to 'language we use to draw to the display', but how OpenGL is implemented is very much in question with this process.

How to you know Plasma Next will support Wayland? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46585837)

The post seems to presuppose that Plasma Next will support Wayland. I doubt that: http://blog.martin-graesslin.com/blog/

Re:How to you know Plasma Next will support Waylan (2)

TheCycoONE (913189) | about 7 months ago | (#46585927)

The actual article where he says Plasma Next will not (at least initially) support Wayland is: http://blog.martin-graesslin.c... [martin-graesslin.com]

Re:How to you know Plasma Next will support Waylan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46586045)

I think (from the vary articles you like) it's quite clear it WILL support it.

It will not support it on the first release. They may be overly-optimistic, but with the change of QT done, hopefully they can focus their efforts to finishing what needs done for wayland support. In addition, because of the diversity of supported platforms, hopefully it won't be as much work as it sounds like.

Remote display across network? (2)

dbc (135354) | about 7 months ago | (#46585895)

OK, so I need to buy a clue here... does this move the ball forward with respect to being able to run an X-Windows client application on one node, and set the display back to a Wayland-based display server running on another node elsewhere on the network?

Re:Remote display across network? (4, Informative)

robmv (855035) | about 7 months ago | (#46586253)

Yes, XWayland can be compared to an X Server running on Windows or over OS X, it translates X to the native display, in this case Wayland

Re:Remote display across network? (1)

steamraven (2428480) | about 7 months ago | (#46586857)

Actually, you just want VNC: tightvnc, vnc4 or vino. It works so much better for any major application, especially if it uses any recent X extensions

Re:Remote display across network? (3, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about 7 months ago | (#46587093)

Actually, I do *NOT* want VNC. My objective is to run an X app on a server that itself has no video capabilities at all and have that window appear fully integrated on my workstation desktop. I do not want a window that contains an entirely unneeded desktop that contains the app window that I actually want.

VNC does not work better for that application, at all.

Re:Remote display across network? (3, Informative)

washu_k (1628007) | about 7 months ago | (#46587255)

Neither VNC or RDP require that the server have any local video capabilities. It is quite possible to run a Windows server headless.

RDP can remote single applications and has been able to for years. No full desktop required.

Re:Remote display across network? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 7 months ago | (#46587653)

RDP can remote single applications and has been able to for years. No full desktop required.

Do you happen to know how RDP handles windows that occur outside the root of the first window in single application mode? Does it "just work" with a new client-side window?

Re:Remote display across network? (1)

Barsteward (969998) | about 7 months ago | (#46590869)

this is still the best Linux solution:- https://www.nomachine.com/ [nomachine.com]

Re:Remote display across network? (2)

sjames (1099) | about 7 months ago | (#46587753)

Vnc requires most of the things a full X server installation require and it's a bit clunky to use as a bonus. Compare to "ssh me@server -c MyXapp".

What do you recommend for forwarding a single app from Linux server to Linus workstation?

Re:Remote display across network? (1)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | about 7 months ago | (#46587823)

In that case what you want is xpra [xpra.org] . Each window is rendered off-screen and forwarded individually, as a compressed video stream (x264 if it's available). You can detach from the xpra server and reattach later, from the same client or a different one, with all your applications intact. A lot like how Wayland remoting will work, really, except that in Wayland it will be better integrated due to not needing to support all the legacy parts of X11.

Re:Remote display across network? (1)

sjames (1099) | about 7 months ago | (#46587983)

I do use xpra sometimes when I need the extra functionality and it works well. My point ws that VNC is a non-starter for that need (it works well for other situations, especially for providing remote user support).

As for Wayland, the only thing I've seen there is experimental support for running the full blown Wayland server and compositor on the server and it will use RDP if you want to view it remotely. It's hard to tell though since it's all very hand wavey at this point.

Re:Remote display across network? (1)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | about 7 months ago | (#46588267)

As for Wayland, the only thing I've seen there is experimental support for running the full blown Wayland server and compositor on the server and it will use RDP if you want to view it remotely.

Well, you will need a Wayland compositor on the server, since Wayland is a local/shared-memory IPC protocol. The compositor will take the place of the xpra server, and communicate with a proxy (Wayland client) on the user's machine. It doesn't have to merge the windows into a single desktop, however. The current RDP backend in Weston is limited to the desktop mode, but if you can forward a complete desktop then there's nothing technically difficult about forwarding an individual window; it's just a matter of proxying the non-video parts of the protocol. I get the impression that they have more urgent tasks on their to-do list, like getting XWayland working so that you can use it with legacy applications.

Re:Remote display across network? (1)

sjames (1099) | about 7 months ago | (#46594401)

It will be interesting to see how all of that plays out.

Re:Remote display across network? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591421)

Sorry what is it about either protocol that makes you believe it is rooted to sending an entire desktop?

You don't want VNC? Funny that's pretty much how remote X works at the moment, except without the niceties like compression. Most modern applications drawn over the network will be pixel scraped and sent as a bitmap.

The way most VNC and RDP as if the protocol is entirely defined by the one most common implementation is really quite eye-opening, especially when they talk as if they have some authority on the subject.

You want a remote window application, you SHOULDN'T CARE whether or not it's delivered via VNC.

Re:Remote display across network? (1)

sjames (1099) | about 7 months ago | (#46594163)

Because I can't use vaporware. Can you recommend these ready to install implementations that have the needed properties?

If you say write it yourself, I will reply why don't I just stick with X since it works right now.

If you believe X and VNC are the same, you must not know very much about either one.

Re:Remote display across network? (3, Informative)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 7 months ago | (#46588363)

No one WANTS VNC. The very idea of POLLING for changes is pretty much the worst approach to a remote display that you can come up with.

Re:Remote display across network? (1)

sjames (1099) | about 7 months ago | (#46587023)

Essentially, it takes the Xorg server and adds a video driver that causes it to be a Wayland client.

Re:Remote display across network? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 7 months ago | (#46587599)

Do you really care about remote X protocol, or do you want a remote window with the app on it? 'Cause Wayland checked in per-app RDP a year ago and making a chromeless RDP viewer ought to be pretty straightforward (if it doesn't exist already). ssh handles X specially - handling RDP specially could be something it adds.

For some people the distinction matters, but for others it's good enough (or better), depending on which needs more bandwidth, as X can sometimes be an unreasonable pig on the wire (see also LBX, NX, and x2go).

Re:Remote display across network? (1)

dbc (135354) | about 7 months ago | (#46600341)

Really care. I want a headless box running legacy X applications to be able to display across the network without a noticeable increase in latency.

Linux Only :( (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46585943)

I'm still waiting for an announcement that any OS works besides Linux. They want this to win, they need it to run on UNIX & BSD.

Re:Linux Only :( (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 7 months ago | (#46586483)

Yeah, Linux seems to be killing BSD and all flavors of UNIX on the desktop that don't have an apple logo on them. I'm not sure why Non-linux support is really needed. However, if it is needed, it kind of makes sense to get it working rock solid and tested on the largest of the three ( linux, BSD, UNIX), before starting a port to the others. When Gnome and KDE have made the transition, then I think it would probably be ready for BSD & Unix Ports.

Re:Linux Only :( (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | about 7 months ago | (#46587021)

They want this to win, they need it to run on UNIX & BSD.

Seriously? Linux is a very small fraction of the desktop market and (other than OSX) any other UNIX or BSD is a very small fraction of that.

They don't need BSD support to win anything other than friendship.

Is XWayland... (2)

unixisc (2429386) | about 7 months ago | (#46585955)

... a part of X11 or a part of Wayland? Where exactly does it fit?

Re:Is XWayland... (4, Informative)

Shimbo (100005) | about 7 months ago | (#46586251)

XWayland is the X server for Wayland, so that you can run traditional X applications on Wayland (as opposed to Qt etc. applications, which will talk directly to Wayland). http://wayland.freedesktop.org... [freedesktop.org]

Re:Is XWayland... (3, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | about 7 months ago | (#46586999)

Client X11 apps speak the X11 protocol to XWayland, XWayland speaks the Wayland protocol to Wayland so it's basically a big compatility shim. From Wayland's side it's just another client and if you use an X11 server you don't need it, it's not really part of either. Maybe the closest analogy is WINE, if you use Windows or run native Linux applications you don't need it. But if you want to run Windows applications on Linux you need WINE, likewise if you want to run X11 applications on Wayland you need XWayland. Basically you take an X11 server, stop it from talking to actual hardware and makes it draw to a Wayland window instead.

Re:Is XWayland... (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about 7 months ago | (#46587029)

from TFS it sounds like it's part of x.org, it's all the same developers.

I assume it's a server that kicks to Wayland, similar to Xnest kicking to X.

Is it just me? (3, Insightful)

benjfowler (239527) | about 7 months ago | (#46585961)

Is it just me, or is the Linux graphical stack insanely complex? Every time I read about it, they've introduced three new acronyms.

Re:Is it just me? (2, Insightful)

neuro88 (674248) | about 7 months ago | (#46586373)

At this point, it's mostly just you. All this work going on vastly simplifies the stack. Wayland compositors are much simpler than the entire X stack (which has to be supported even though much of it isn't used). Unfortunately, X still needs to stay around in some capacity so we can still play our proprietary games ,etc.

Re:Is it just me? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46586875)

At this point, it's mostly just you.

That's just not the case. I have been amused at the proliferation of Linux graphics stack diagrams that have emerged on Wikipedia as contributors try to explain this stuff. There are six (nice) distinct diagrams on this page [wikipedia.org] , for instance. The fact is that rendering graphics is hard and lengthy pipelines tend to emerge and unless you have your head in it for some reason it appears "insanely complex."

This [wikipedia.org] diagram actually illustrates where Glamor fits into the graphics stack. In simple terms, Glamor uses OpenGL to render X Windows.

Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46586219)

Really, who gives a flying f*

Re: acceleration (2)

jgotts (2785) | about 7 months ago | (#46586403)

Anything without acceleration is an experiment. It doesn't matter how many lines of code you've written, or how efficient it seems. 100% of the required functionality is acceleration.

Acceleration is why X is being replaced by Wayland. 2D X11 requires a separate driver for every different type of hardware. 3D X11, from what I read by the Wayland people themselves, has three different APIs. For a long time, the only drivers with good 3D acceleration were proprietary drivers from AMD and nVidia.

I want Wayland to succeed, but I feel that it's still a long way off. The devil is in the acceleration. Think about the time spent by XFree86 developers over the decades writing acceleration code versus everything else, and that's the part we're missing right now. I'm not very clear on just where the acceleration is missing, but it sounds like it's missing in a foundational piece.

Re: acceleration (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46586813)

Acceleration is why X is being replaced by Wayland. 2D X11 requires a separate driver for every different type of hardware. 3D X11, from what I read by the Wayland people themselves, has three different APIs. For a long time, the only drivers with good 3D acceleration were proprietary drivers from AMD and nVidia.

So, what you're saying here is that somehow magically the Wayland people have access to some special fairy dust which allows them to write their drivers for the disparate video hardware we've got on the market without vendor support or blobs?

Maybe I'm being dumb here, but at some point in the process even Wayland has to talk to the hardware..so, does this mean we're in for proprietary vendor blobs for it as well in future to get full performance?

Re: acceleration (1)

Xtifr (1323) | about 7 months ago | (#46587073)

Think about the time spent by XFree86 developers over the decades writing acceleration code versus everything else, and that's the part we're missing right now.

The Wayland developers are, for the most part, the X developers, so they not only have access to all that existing X driver code that took so long to write, they're the folks who best understand that code, and know how to adapt it to a new environment. They're standing on the shoulders of giants (and in some cases, are the giants).

The biggest changes we should expect to see are in the API. Under the hood, I expect to see a whole lot of code that's identical to the current Xserver, or nearly so. As I understand it, the biggest issue right now is making sure that Wayland has the security X always lacked. Security, rather than hardware details, is probably the biggest obstacle to getting the acceleration in.

Re: acceleration (3, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | about 7 months ago | (#46589615)

This again? Two guys that worked on bits of Xorg are not collectively "the X developers". There are plenty of others out there working on stuff other than a nice tear free framebuffer for a phone. There are plenty of others that don't laugh at "running that app from 1996", who don't laugh at shaped windows, who don't bite the hand that is actually adding some wayland support and who have something better than a half finished presentation with no screenshots to show off their work.

Re: acceleration (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591445)

Oh so I suppose you will only support a project if the entire team is ex X11 coders?

Honestly I've seen your posts on this subject over and over again and they are starting to wreak of X11 shill, or at least someone with some massive anti-wayland agenda.

People bitch and moan about the whole "Those who don't understand ____ are doomed to reinvent it poorly". Then people point out they actually have understanding and you come out of the woodworks and say it's not enough?

Seriously the fact that you rarely get an insightful moderation should be a clue. Take your uninformed anti-wayland rants elsewhere.

Re: acceleration (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 7 months ago | (#46592121)

with some massive anti-wayland agenda.

Not letting it slide when some fanboy that's never run Wayland but likes the idea says "X sux because of some lie I made up" is not an anti-wayland agenda.

Re: acceleration (1)

Xtifr (1323) | about 7 months ago | (#46605975)

And where did I say anything like "X sux..."? I said Wayland is going to have the benefit of the work that was done on X to create drivers, and the benefit of people on its team who generally understand those drivers. And you attacked like some sort of rabid mongoose.

I like X. I use its remote features regularly. And I'm quite satisfied with its performance. I'm going to be reluctant to switch to Wayland until it supports (directly or through XWayland) all the features I need. Nevertheless, I think I'm probably going to end up running Wayland/XWayland in the not-too-distant future. It's already installed on my system, since most of its libraries were dragged in by some package dependencies I haven't bothered to track down. And I like variety and options, so I'll probably start playing with it soon. I have tried the sample terminal client, and that seems to be working just fine.

Re: acceleration (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46593713)

Two guys that worked on bits of Xorg are not collectively "the X developers".

Not just two guys, but most of the team, and not just bits of X, but much of its design and current core code for the past 20 years, including nearly every driver for X.

Re: acceleration (2)

Kjella (173770) | about 7 months ago | (#46589127)

It's not quite as bad as it sounds, the actual hardware drivers are still accelerated and exposed as OpenGL, it's just that XWayland doesn't make use of it. If you look at this diagram [wikipedia.org] it's the line between the X-server and libDRM that's broken when you use XWayland instead because Wayland can't talk directly down to that level. XWayland needs to be rewritten to accelerate graphics using OpenGL instead, then it'll hook into the green box above libDRM and all will be well. Luckily for the Wayland project so does the X-server want to as well, "Glamor" that they talk about is essentially 2D X11 over OpenGL.

Old:
X-client --> X-server --> libDRM --> hardware
Old using Wayland:
X-client --> XWayland --> (broken, software fallback) --> hardware

New in X-server:
X-client --> X-server (Glamor) --> OpenGL --> libDRM --> hardware
New using Wayland
X-client --> XWayland (Glamor) --> OpenGL --> libDRM --> hardware

Long term it looks like the plan is to expose everything via OpenGL/OpenGL ES for rendering and EGL for the windowing system so the direct link between X11 and libDRM would go away. That is still a few years off though.

Re: acceleration (1)

maestroX (1061960) | about 7 months ago | (#46593075)

I'm not very clear on just where the acceleration is missing, but it sounds like it's missing in a foundational piece.

Yup. Beat around the bush. Yadda Yadda about compatibility layer upon compatibility layer to keep features before acceleration. Just start anew & solid and the rest will follow.

X from user space (2)

FithisUX (855293) | about 7 months ago | (#46586735)

With Wayland/Mir people should consider pushing X totally on user space, like Xming,VcXsrv,XDarwin (and XPhoton R.I.P.) with an SDL fallback.

Re:X from user space (4, Informative)

sjames (1099) | about 7 months ago | (#46587127)

X has always been in userspace.

Re:X from user space (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46589913)

X has always been in userspace.

That's a serious overstatement.

X.org runs as root and directly maps parts of the PCI address space into its address space. It has the same amount of raw metal access as the kernel; it's a kernel which runs on top of another kernel.

Re:X from user space (2)

sjames (1099) | about 7 months ago | (#46590741)

If it runs as a user (even root), it runs in userspace. It is a privileged user, but that's not actually the same thing.

While not typically done, there is no reason it can't be split into a part that maps the PCI device and a part that requests specific access to those parts.

If you can put up with a performance loss, Xorg CAN be run on top of the framebuffer device as non-root [debian.org] . This ha been doable for years.

Wrong way round (1)

gawdonblue (996454) | about 7 months ago | (#46587317)

Where can I get WaylandX? This would be much more useful.

Re:Wrong way round (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46588439)

WaylandX already exists: it's just called Weston. I'm actually serious: Weston can work as an X client if you so desire. If it's in your distro's repositories (I know it's in Ubuntu) you can try it right away if you wish.

(Sorry for the anonymous reply, I don't want to undo my moderation.)

Complexity? (1)

whoever57 (658626) | about 7 months ago | (#46588589)

Wayland is supposed to reduce code complexity.

Is XWayland, running on top of Wayland actually less complex than X on its own?

Re:Complexity? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591493)

Wayland is a fraud.

It's advertised as a way to make things less complex. But it lacks critical functionality from day 1, it's already due a rewrite to support OpenGL properly (which I'd say is PRETTY BASIC FUNCTIONALITY), and certain other feature requests, like remote apps, get contradictory and often ridiculous responses, from "You don't need that" ("But I use it!) "Then you're just wierd, fuck off weirdo" to "Oh, in Wayland we'll be turning each window into a live H.264 video stream! That'll have no latency at all and be so much better than the way X11 does it! What do you mean that's stupid? You're stupid!"

The entire project needs to die.

Re:Complexity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46593881)

Retard or FUD, you choose!

Re:Complexity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46596481)

Shill or moron, you choose.

I'd love to know where the "support" for Wayland is coming from. It's a piece of shit nobody's asked for, and it gets worse with every new bit of news coming out about it. Are you guys morons, or is someone out there paying you to ruin GNU/Linux?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?