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 1.5 Released

Soulskill posted about 3 months ago | from the onward-and-upward dept.

Software 179

An anonymous reader writes "Wayland 1.5 has been released, along with Weston Compositor 1.5. Wayland/Weston 1.5 carry many new user features, with a new libinput back-end, XWayland support, a full-screen shell, and many other changes. This release is particularly important as Fedora 21 will run on GNOME Wayland and X.Org Server 1.16 will be released this summer with integrated XWayland support."

cancel ×

179 comments

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

Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (2)

Jorl17 (1716772) | about 3 months ago | (#47053561)

Wayland and its never-ending stream of stories seems to be going the way pulseaudio did. It's heavily criticized, cuts down some features or is somehow buggy, but seems to give many users what they want, or at least that's what all these crazy stories point to.

As long as I can still run X atop Wayland, I don't really care. I loved pulseaudio when it was being bashed already. Maybe I'll love Wayland too? Has anyone here actually seriously tried this thing before bashing it?

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (2, Insightful)

morgauxo (974071) | about 3 months ago | (#47053631)

>> As long as I can still run X atop Wayland, I don't really care.

If I can't get the applications I want as X apps anymore because everything has moved to Wayland but Wayland still doesn't support remote display then I will care deeply.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (5, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | about 2 months ago | (#47053777)

It's highly likely that Wayland's remote display will beat X. Virtually none of the features (remote drawing) that X provided over the network are used today (line/polygon drawing) and tool kits like Qt/GTK+ have you shipping framebuffers across the network, something built around manipulating frame buffers should be able to stream them over the network, individually, to a compositor on your system.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (2, Insightful)

dbc (135354) | about 2 months ago | (#47053937)

And Wayland remote display is going to happen when, exactly? Is it on the roadmap? I'm asking seriously -- if there is a roadmap, point me to it, I don't follow Wayland devopment outside of the occasional rant-fests on Slashdot like we are having now.

There are certain environments where remote display is the *only* display, so if Wayland doesn't have it, Wayland doesn't go into those environments.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (0)

Microlith (54737) | about 2 months ago | (#47053987)

No timetable. Wayland is a protocol between applications and the compositor, so remote support depends on the compositor. It's already being tackled, so I would be surprised if it didn't happen shortly after Wayland was rolled out on desktop distros.

There are certain environments where remote display is the *only* display, so if Wayland doesn't have it, Wayland doesn't go into those environments.

Then in such a case I would say two things:

First, why are you using a GUI in such a situation?

Second, X11 is not going away immediately, and no one expects it to. Qt and GTK+ will remain compatible with X11 for some time to come precisely because of this. And you'll still be able to access those remote X applications via XWayland.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (4, Insightful)

dbc (135354) | about 2 months ago | (#47054197)

First, why are you using a GUI in such a situation?

Robots don't have displays. It's really difficult to get your work done if your monitor keeps skittering away across the lab. Visualization tools for various pieces of robot state are much better than text dumps -- not surprisingly. Display across the WiFi network is a requirement. Also, all the generic basic tools need to run in a headless environment.

But robots aren't the only embedded environment where Linux is popular. Again, with those it is nice to be able to display to a large monitor for development work, even though the device might have a small display of it's own.

Second, X11 is not going away immediately, and no one expects it to. Qt and GTK+ will remain compatible with X11 for some time to come precisely because of this. And you'll still be able to access those remote X applications via XWayland.

And that is what we will no doubt do when the time comes.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47054533)

Robots don't have displays. It's really difficult to get your work done if your monitor keeps skittering away across the lab. Visualization tools for various pieces of robot state are much better than text dumps -- not surprisingly.

If you're running the UI on the robot and sending it over the network rather than just feeding the data necessary to a visualisation tool on your PC, you're doing it wrong.

I'm not saying that there aren't legitimate uses for UIs in headless machines, but I struggle to find one and the one you gave certainly doesn't seem to be one either.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47054685)

I suspect it's because he'll want to access it from many devices, not tied down to a box with said visualisation tool.

I do this with my raspberrypi I can run an x application on the pi and have it all drawn to my laptop desktop n900 without having to start x on the pi itself. This is why it is X is so good.
ie login to pi from any where with X running using ssh, interact with it graphically by running the program on the pi with graphical output drawn on my local display, if I keep the output simple (ie not opengl ) I can do this across continents. vlc and framebuffer solutions etc struggle because they are trying to do to much...

Note the advantage to this is not having to fetch a particular app for the machine I am using.
It's similar to running a small web server on an embedded device where the remote accesses through a browser.
(Heck I have seen pic 16-bit microcontrollers with a firmware ethernet in them which can interact with a web browser).
This works graphically and at the same time uses relatively few resources (ie just a small program accessing a library). The heavy lifting is done by the machine with the remote display.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47054037)

This might be useful.

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/04/03/1219239/remote-desktop-backend-merged-into-wayland

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47054049)

not any time soon.
Problem is not with Wayland.
Problem is with NVIDIA binary drivers. They simply have no support of it and are rather in very initial stage of Wayland compatibility development. AMD open source drivers also suck at the moment when it comes to many aspects. So there is long road ahead.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (5, Informative)

Tailhook (98486) | about 2 months ago | (#47054073)

RDP protocol support was merged [slashdot.org] into Wayland over a year ago. Wayland's original developer prototyped [youtube.com] a remote display implementation almost two years go, before 1.0 was released. This is in addition to XWayland [freedesktop.org] already providing an X server to host legacy X apps.

Wayland will have good remote display. The peanut gallery rant-fests around here not withstanding.

Anyhow. Now you know. If I'm wrong get a refund.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (2, Interesting)

bluegutang (2814641) | about 2 months ago | (#47054217)

Anyhow. Now you know. If I'm wrong get a refund.

While I think Wayland remote display will end up working just fine, "get a refund" is exactly the wrong attitude, and one that is doing a great deal to hold back open source. Don't like your Firefox buttons switching places every two weeks? Get a refund. Unity's window management for retards driving you up a wall? Get a refund. Newest GNOME version missing half the features you depend on? Get a refund. Guess what? Nobody is going to ask for a refund. They are going to switch to a different piece of software. And if every open source application has been trashed by developers, they'll switch to closed source.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47054337)

And if every open source application has been trashed by developers, they'll switch to closed source.

So for a project like Firefox where the number of non contributing users counts; this makes a difference, but for the vast majority of projects it makes no difference as the only people that matter are contributors. A library I work on has on average a few thousand downloads but we have 6 contributors. Aside from those 6 people, everyone else is just contributing bandwidth costs. What do I care if those other people are satisfied with it ?

For projects like wayland etc.. the end user doesn't really get a say except through choosing a distro. Distros will either ship Xorg or wayland, possibly both and if the distro doesn't work for use case xyz then people won't use it.

If remote display isn't there for day one who really cares ? Those who need it will continue using X until someone pays for or wants the development bad enough.
If remote display is _that_ important then the commercial distros will absolutely support it as they will get funding for it.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (4, Insightful)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 2 months ago | (#47054493)

No one is asking for feature refunds. They are simply bitching about users who demand every piece of software be 100% feature complete the moment it's first alpha team is announced and then continue to spew crap about it long through the development process.

Yes Firefox has abandoned geeks in favour of more simple users, well guess what there are many other packages out there that de-crappify the interface. Funnily enough that is EXACTLY the stance Wayland developers have taken from the very start. Design a flexible light weight modern protocol that does away with X's cruft and offloads stuff to the client. The users demand remote. Well if it matters that much to that many then the compositor can be written to support that. That is the flexibility that is missing from X.

The attitude was fine early on, but seeing every other bloody post on slashdot spewing the same crap, even after the Wayland team have announced remote desktop is possible, and even after the Wayland team have demonstrated code that does that, what do you think the answer is going to be?

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (3, Interesting)

Beck_Neard (3612467) | about 2 months ago | (#47054611)

I've built a few open source projects and been heavily criticized for my design choices but you know what? I agree with this. A lot of developers are too stubborn to make changes and it drives people away then they wonder why no one is using their project anymore.

But the flipside is true too. A lot of the time 'flaws' are actually sober and sane design choices which you have to get into the internals of the system to understand. People often don't get this and then bitch and moan about why something hasn't been done the way they like.

The Wayland devs seem pretty sober and sane so far, and I think they've made a lot of nice design choices. The problem of displaying graphics on a PC is an inherently ugly problem (and X is an ugly piece of software which visibly reflects that). If they can make it just a little bit better, it will be worth the wait, in my opinion.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 2 months ago | (#47054749)

Can it work without OpenGL or a GPU on the remote computer?

Re: Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47054887)

Yes there is a software back end someone cooked up.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47055075)

Yes, it can run on a framebuffer and on headless devices.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (5, Informative)

DrXym (126579) | about 2 months ago | (#47054441)

There is already a reference RDP implementation in Weston. So to answer your question, it's happened already.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 months ago | (#47054709)

Yes, but will anyone ever develop it into a usable product?

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (2)

DrXym (126579) | about 2 months ago | (#47054931)

Quite obviously yes.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (2)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 months ago | (#47055011)

Nothing is obvious in open source. :D

2 years later: "Yeah, Wayland has RDP support... But it's kind of broken and buggy. It requires these patches to be applied, manual creation of this 1000-line configuration file, and the sessions have always to be started from command line. Also, you have to use this certain distro. We are waiting it to be fixed, but the component has insufficient manpower and resources for the task to ever be actually completed anyway. Just use VNC, sigh..."

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47054521)

I don't follow Wayland devopment outside of the occasional rant-fests on Slashdot like we are having now.

So you're saying you're wilfully uninformed yet that doesn't deter you from ranting about the very subject you know nothing about here on Slashdot?

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 months ago | (#47054531)

Apparently something good enough to be a bullet point on that was done last year but the fanboys don't know any details other than an announcement they point to. Maybe a Wayland developer will comment on one of these Wayland stories some day apart from the fanboys and we'll get some real information instead of links to a video of a half finished powerpoint presentation with no Wayland screenshots.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (-1, Flamebait)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 2 months ago | (#47054813)

Probably never.

Remote Display is something that Wayland's developers do not consider important in any way shape or form whatsoever. When these projects started, anyone saying "Hold on, one of the major features of X I like is the network transparency" was summarily ridiculed by the Wayland group as an out of touch nerd who doesn't know what "real users" want or need.

And, FWIW, the GP is completely flat-out wrong given everything I've heard thus far. "Wayland Remote display" will be, according to what I've read so far, if ever implemented based on H.264 (or something similar), essentially a slightly more efficient version of VNC (which had an MPEG-1 mode) running in a per-window mode. Because nothing says "better" than something that sucks up CPU on both sides of the network, introduces a GoP of latency, and requires megabytes of throughput every second to show a full screen word processor.

Thanks Shuttleworth. Yes, you. Yes, I know you're proposing Mir. But if you hadn't said Ubuntu was switching to Mir at some point in the future, the debate would still be "kludgy but proven X.org vs untried, poorly thought out new system", not "untried poorly thought out new system vs another".

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47054319)

Except that the applications that send remote drawing commands over the network are those that perform well on a DSL or lower, while those that send framebuffers are those that have several seconds of lag all the time.

SDL sends framebuffers - and only the changes, if the right functions are used. Yet, a simple solitaire program of mine written using SDL is slow enough that if I had the time, I would rewrite it to use XPutImage, to get rid of the multi-second lag.

Whatever remote system Wayland may get is likely to be as crappy as VNC (which also sends the framebuffer, rather than drawing commands). Welcome back to Windows 1995, where VNC is the best we can do.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (3, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 2 months ago | (#47054799)

Multi-second lag on X sounds like misuse of the protocol. Unfortunately, this is largely the fault of Xlib. The X11 protocol was carefully designed to be asynchronous, but then they wrapped the whole thin in a synchronous C API. This means that you end up sending a small amount of data to the server then blocking while you wait for the reply. Used correctly, you'd send all of the display updates sequentially, get the updates as the arrive, and later handle any errors that appear. Similarly, input events would be handled as they arrived, rather than synchronising everything. Unfortunately, although XCB fixes this, most toolkits are designed around the synchronous model so they don't really take advantage of it.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47054439)

Virtually none of the features (remote drawing) that X provided over the network are used today (line/polygon drawing) and tool kits like Qt/GTK+ have you shipping framebuffers across the network

I'm using Motif and tcl/tk over tunnelled X every day you insensitive clod.

And when I do have to use a bling app, 'ssh -CX' generally tames the beast, even web browsers with horribly inefficient and unwanted fade in - fade out effects.

Check out some supercomputer cluster management software some time. Bling doesn't matter one iota. Having the damn thing do its job matters.

grumble grumble lawn grumble grumble hipsters grumble grumble cold dead hands.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47054457)

It's highly likely that Wayland's remote display will beat X.

Promises, promises. From the same bunch that failed so miserably and so serially getting their X implementation sped up -- where others had less trouble. To me it looks like they're blaming their own failure on the protocol --whatever its failings-- to have an excuse to do it all over again from the ground up, like a good little mozilla.

And now you're pulling a redmond by insisting it'll be sooooooo much better once it finally appears. Well, it's not there now, is it? Not the 3.0 that'll work a little, not the 2.0 ramshackle notional beta, not even the 1.0 public proof of concept pre-alpha we've come to know and love so much. So what use are your promises to me now then?

Due to concept that is unlikely (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 months ago | (#47054517)

The cases where people have argued such a thing are the strawman you've taken up on as streaming bitmaps, which is not always (in fact very rarely outside of gnome3) the case. So there's equivalent performance (streaming bitmaps the same speed in both) or better when you have a situation where one can do something other than just stream bitmaps. Of course every time this gets mentioned we get the "only dinosaurs want remote access/shaped windows/whatever feature of X does not apply on phones - then the distraction - hey look how slow gedit starts on X so obviously X is crap and not gedit" so this discussion usually ends up at a dead end.
We've already got VNC and Wayland is not planning anything better remotely so we may as well focus on what it gives us as a local framebuffer, then screenscrape as best as we can later. With a dumb framebuffer the plan is to trade complexity and flexibility for speed.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47053803)

Wayland will never support remote display because that's not not it works. Someone could write a compositor that does the job, but the best anyone has come up with is VNC... ...which, IMHO, makes X11 look like a snappy protocol.

With any luck someone will write something of value, but I'm not holding my breath. I'm guessing we'll end up with Wayland -> VNC -> X11 Display showing VNC window -> NX. Fuck me. Client server will die with Wayland. :( No, it's really not for the better.

Too bad it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Can't seem to get any middle ground these days, what with this and systemd.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (2)

Microlith (54737) | about 2 months ago | (#47053877)

Wayland will never support remote display because that's not not it works.

Wayland does not work over a network inherently, but there's no reason you couldn't forward the buffers over the network and have them composited remotely.

Someone could write a compositor that does the job, but the best anyone has come up with is VNC... ...which, IMHO, makes X11 look like a snappy protocol.

Except that X11 over the network with any modern toolkit is already effectively forcing X11 to do what Wayland will do - only X11 does it badly and without compression. And VNC sucks because it has to poll the whole desktop - Wayland could forward individual applications.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 2 months ago | (#47053909)

Except that X11 over the network with any modern toolkit is already effectively forcing X11 to do what Wayland will do - only X11 does it badly and without compression

Well, you could run it over SSH with compression enabled.

Though, run something like firefox over remote X, and that's a real dog. You could pretty much download and install firefox locally before the remote X version of firefox would even give a hint that it's starting.

(I had to remote firefox because we were diagnosing an issue where some machines could access a website and others couldn't so I needed some more data).

Oh, and this was over SSH with X forwarding, no compression, GigE network all the way. The only thing was the target system was Linux, the X server was Cygwin-X on Windows.

Starting anything more complex than an xterm remotely is an exercise in patience.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (2)

Microlith (54737) | about 2 months ago | (#47053943)

Basically all that. Even over GigE simple things like gvim are a dog.

If I can stream a game from my desktop to a tablet and play it with virtually no latency, on Windows it should be possible for something implementing Wayland to stream individual application frame buffers across a network effortlessly - hell, it could do it with applications that are live on a remote screen and keep them alive if the remote server disconnects, something that always annoyed me.

That does not sound like a real example (1, Interesting)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 months ago | (#47054605)

Basically all that. Even over GigE simple things like gvim are a dog.

To me that sounds like complete and utter bullshit unless gvim is now seriously broken. In my workplace complex interactive geophysical packages with a lot of graphical information are used remotely over X by dozens of people at once to (in some cases) substandard MS Windows implementations of X without running like a dog - even over wireless to laptops, so how is your gvim over GigE example even possible unless somethign else is going on? It appears to fail the reality test. Did you make it up or was the machine you were running it on under very heavy load at the time so it would be slow in all cases? If you made it up - why - what is motivating you to make such things up about what you see as opposition instead of praising what you see as good in Wayland? This X sux rubbish that fails the reality test is annoying and doesn't do Wayland any good while Wayland is still making progress.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (2)

boristhespider (1678416) | about 2 months ago | (#47054265)

I've had to remote Firefox too, chiefly to access papers that are behind paywalls my university has access to but I have no access to at a university I'm visiting, or at home. You're making Firefox over X sound a lot better than it actually is.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 months ago | (#47054609)

Use an older firefox or something else without a recent gtk+.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 2 months ago | (#47054765)

or elinks, or dillo.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47054651)

An SSH tunnel could alleviate your latency woes considerably. But w/e if you prefer waiting for 1s for the response to everyone of your clicks, I'm sure x-forwarding firefox is a good solution.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (3, Insightful)

paulatz (744216) | about 2 months ago | (#47054657)

I've had to remote Firefox too,

You're doing it wrong! Just set up an ssh tunnel and tell firefox to use it as sock proxy. This works seamlessly

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 months ago | (#47054551)

"Modern toolkit" is only portions of the most recent bits of gtk+. The rest doesn't do anything so stupid.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (3, Informative)

DrXym (126579) | about 2 months ago | (#47054463)

Wayland is the protocol that clients talk with the compositor, not the compositor itself. The reference compositor Weston already implements an RDP server and does so in a remarkably small amount of source code.

As for it's performance, it will be no worse than X (or Xvnc) on modern apps because as everyone has stated, most modern apps are pushing pixmaps around anyway. If anything performance has the potential to be better because the remoting protocol can be asynchronous (unlike X) and the server doesn't have a handful of X and extensions processes with all their context switches to worry about.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (1)

Jorl17 (1716772) | about 2 months ago | (#47054321)

But that's what I meant. Can't running X inside Wayland still allow us to use it as an X Server to point client apps to, thus only kind of changing X's backend?

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (2)

GauteL (29207) | about 2 months ago | (#47054393)

If the app is built on top of GTK+ (I assume Qt is the same?), the app will support both and the backend will be selected at runtime [freedesktop.org] .

I.e. GDK_BACKEND will be wayland by default, but if you log in via ssh and set X forwarding, it can be set to "X11". It should be completely seamless.

No GTK2 (3, Interesting)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 2 months ago | (#47054833)

That's nice but what you describe is for GTK3, and not GTK2. Seems like the latter is still used a lot, and frankly GTK3 has gone rogue, deleting features, adding ones only Gnome developers will use etc.
Developers of applications run away from it and migrations from GTK2 to GTK3 seldom made (though there are dual mode GTK2/GTK3 applications where you can select the UI).

Recently with GTK 3.10 they removed icons in menus and the highlighting of letters to help you with keyboard navigation (e.g. Alt-F opens File menu). It's the Slashdot Beta of the toolkit world.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (1)

DrXym (126579) | about 2 months ago | (#47054435)

It does support remote display (and not just one protocol either) and widget sets will support X backend as long as there are volunteers to maintain it.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (5, Informative)

Microlith (54737) | about 3 months ago | (#47053653)

Wayland is critically important, which is why (unlike Pulseaudio) it hasn't already been rolled out yet. Qt has integrated it, Gnome has, KDE is porting KWin to implement it. There have been fairly few technical criticisms, the only one I've seen made with any muster has been network transparency - but even that could be solved rather easily given the way Wayland works with framebuffers.

On the flip side, Xorg has you dragging around unused cruft and the way it interfaces with the kernel forces some possible security holes be left open, holes that Wayland will fix.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47054225)

I'm really surprised. You're one of the nastier Linux zealots on Slashdot who has done a fair amount of trolling over the years, yet you have a positive attitude towards Wayland. Maybe you're growing up. Better late than never, they say.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 months ago | (#47054239)

Maybe I'll love Wayland too? Has anyone here actually seriously tried this thing before bashing it?

Not many, probably. Currently it's very hard to set up and there's not much you can do with it.

Re:Will it really go the pulseaudio way? (0)

DrXym (126579) | about 2 months ago | (#47054427)

Wayland isn't heavily criticized from a technical standpoint. Most of the "criticism" seems to be from people moaning that it's not X. As you say, X will run on top of X and QT / GTK will be have backends that support X and Wayland. It's simply Ludditism from people who think everyone should suffer under a arcane windowing system to support their esoteric (and still supported) use cases.

I would be more or less wait for other desktops (1)

thieh (3654731) | about 3 months ago | (#47053583)

So it will be more widely adopted and as such have a more unified troubleshooting across different DE's. Or maybe that's just me distro/DE hopping.

I hate FPs like this. (1, Insightful)

pla (258480) | about 3 months ago | (#47053603)

I hate FPs like this - Yes, enough that I feel a need to complain about them in the discussion instead of just moving on.

I use Linux. I've rolled my own kernels (as in actually writing code, not just a custom config and build of the stock tree). And I have never heard of Wayland or Weston. And out of three links, could you have included one going to "what the hell is Wayland"? No. You have a release announcement and a PR page.

Wayland may well rock the world. But when writing up an FP about something obscure (yes, it is - I don't care how many of your friends run it), you would do well to link to an intro-to-obscure-thing page.

Just sayin'.

Re:I hate FPs like this. (2)

nighty5 (615965) | about 3 months ago | (#47053627)

I don't write Linux code, but even I know what Wayland is.

Re:I hate FPs like this. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47053643)

Which troll cave have you been living in the past 4 years?

Re:I hate FPs like this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47053793)

That's the problem, it's been broadcast to all of the caves and he was under a bridge instead

Re:I hate FPs like this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47053699)

I give up...what does "FP" stand for? Can't be "first post"...

Re:I hate FPs like this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47053707)

If you're just writing useless/toy software (which you are, since you're clearly lost in around 1995), you're not better than people who just do custom configs.

Re:I hate FPs like this. (0)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 months ago | (#47054245)

Suckah! Wayland is widely known in the Linux world and requires no further explanation at this point.

Re:I hate FPs like this. (4, Insightful)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 months ago | (#47054389)

Slashdot is not "news for the Linux world," and even if it was, not everyone in "Linux world" is so deeply involved as to keep up to date on every developing piece of software.

All a summary writer has to do is drop in a brief, casual couple of words about what (roughly) it is, and those who need informing are slightly better informed, while those who are already informed don't notice and aren't offended.

Ever notice how the BBC will often refer to "US President Barack Obama," or drop in a reference to the team a famous footballer player plays for, even though one would think those would both be widely known facts among the readership of such articles? Chances are, you didn't notice and didn't care.

Re:I hate FPs like this. (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 months ago | (#47054683)

Hahhaa! Yeah, right.

Again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47053607)

How many stories is Slashdot going to run about Wayland before it's actually a viable product? Apparently it's already up to version 1.5 and it's still not there...

Again?At least it's better than Mir (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47053663)

And like it or not, X DOES need to be replaced. ASAP. Technical users who need all it's (hacked in) functions can stick to X, but the general public just needs a smoother, faster, less buggy solution. And that is/will be Wayland.

And Mir is a stinking pile of dog crap. Canonical needs to stop worrying about "not invented here" and actually work with the Linux community if it wants Ubuntu to become the most popular/most recommended distro again.

Re:Again?At least it's better than Mir (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47053743)

Right now they're all stinking piles of dog crap. Eventually one of them will stop being dog crap, at which point I would like to know about it. Maybe it'll be Berlin. I hear lots of good things about Berlin on Slashdot.

This steady stream of "Wayland 1.X released; it's still dog crap" just makes me think it's vaporware.

Re:Again?At least it's better than Mir (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47054515)

And like it or not, X DOES need to be replaced. ASAP. Technical users who need all it's (hacked in) functions can stick to X, but the general public just needs a smoother, faster, less buggy solution.

Replacing X with Wayland will solve very few real problems, and it will almost certainly create some (remember the pulseaudio and systemd hype before they were actually forced on users by all major distributions ?). Wayland cannot possibly solve problems like these listed below, simply because they are not in X:
- poorly written, buggy, slow, and outdated (in terms of API version compatibility) OpenGL drivers - that is, basically everything other than the Nvidia proprietary driver
- bloated, slow, and buggy - but unfortunately widely used - GUI toolkits
- bloated, slow, and buggy applications
- desktop environments and window managers with the same flaws as above
User-unfriendly configuration and bad (or non-existent) documentation will likely also continue to be issues, as they tend to be with open source software, since they are a low priority for programmers who mainly code for themselves, rather than as a real job. To summarize, games will continue to perform notably worse than on WIndows/Direct3D, KDE and GNOME will still suck in all their usual ways, major Linux desktop applications will still continue to be inferior to their Windows counterparts, and users will still end up having to hack configuration files when things (not uncommonly) go wrong. There will just be some additional PITA related to migrating from one windowing system that works to another.

Wayland is nothing until (0, Redundant)

morgauxo (974071) | about 3 months ago | (#47053633)

Wayland is nothing until there is good remote display support.

Re:Wayland is nothing until (4, Insightful)

blackpaw (240313) | about 3 months ago | (#47053659)

Oddly enough X gets along fine with crap remote display support.

Re:Wayland is nothing until (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47053801)

Real admins master the command line.

Re:Wayland is nothing until (4, Insightful)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about 2 months ago | (#47053851)

Have fun watching YouTube in Lynx.

I personally make a distinction between "using" and "administering" a machine, and as a user, I tend to run X11 (these days often with a tiling window manager). When I want to perform some administrative tasks, I'll often just run a terminal emulator within that environment. Face it, while great for many things, the command line--especially in its raw, no-X11 form, is pretty limited in many areas from the point of view of a typical user.

Don't get me wrong though; I'll often use wget instead of Firefox to download files, do basic file system operations in a terminal, even play an occasional podcast in mplayer. But really, it is not optimal to use the CLI 100% for everyday use for semi-normal people.

Re:Wayland is nothing until (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47053933)

And how often do you need to watch youtube on a remote desktop when administering a remote computer?

Re:Wayland is nothing until (1)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about 2 months ago | (#47054043)

And how often do you need to watch youtube on a remote desktop when administering a remote computer?

That brings me back to the second sentence in my post.

"I personally make a distinction between "using" and "administering" a machine,..."

Did you even read the post at all? Obviously, you are talking about administering a system. But I can guarantee that I am not administering a system while I sit here wasting time posting crap on Slashdot, and I have this funny feeling you're not either.

Re:Wayland is nothing until (0)

martas (1439879) | about 2 months ago | (#47054641)

And how often do you need remote display support while using a machine?

Re:Wayland is nothing until (0)

martin-boundary (547041) | about 2 months ago | (#47054607)

But really, it is not optimal to use the CLI 100% for everyday use for semi-normal people.

Your reductionist dichotomy is too naive. In the real world, there are many more shades of gray where people who use computers have expertise to handle complexity, and where CLI use isn't just for "administration".

But your worst mistake is to assume that somehow, we need to choose only one thing that is optimal for semi-normal people, whoever these people are. Here's a clue, in FOSS we don't need to choose at all. We already have a working Xorg system, and there's no need to replace it. It works. If someone wants something else, by all means they should build it for like minded people, but not by depriving existing users under the dubious claim of optimizing for semi normals, and if you're not semi normal, too bad.

FOSS isn't about concentrating resources for the greatest return on investment for the greatest market share. FOSS is about writing software that solves a problem. Throwing away software that already solves a problem just because it's old and unhip isn't FOSS, it's the kind of commercial decision a Google would make.

Re:Wayland is nothing until (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47054479)

Real admins use whatever tool gets the job done. It's only bitches and zealots who will only use a hammer or a cli.

Re:Wayland is nothing until (1)

Beck_Neard (3612467) | about 2 months ago | (#47054629)

And what if a particular program has no command-line version, or the command-line version sucks and is extremely limited (e.g. running a MATLAB instance on a remote cluster)?

I don't know if you're serious or not but if you're serious you should know that no one enjoys using slow, crappy remote desktops when there is a choice. The problem is that we often have no choice.

Re:Wayland is nothing until (3, Insightful)

martas (1439879) | about 2 months ago | (#47053819)

You're right. That's why nobody uses Windows or OSX.

Re:Wayland is nothing until (2)

blackpaw (240313) | about 2 months ago | (#47053871)

Well windows has Remote Desktop (RDP), but I think that supports your point. I use xrdp for remote gui connects to my linux boxes as it performs a hell of a lot better than X, which is unusable on anything except a local LAN.

Re:Wayland is nothing until (1, Insightful)

martas (1439879) | about 2 months ago | (#47053931)

Yeah, I mean, X forwarding is one of those things that you very rarely need, and when you do, it either doesn't work at all because [inexplicable reasons that can't be fixed without admin on a machine you don't own or having to restart a machine that's 200 miles away], or it sort of works but makes you wish it didn't because it's too slow/glitchy. Typically ssh does the trick, sometimes combined with forwarding gnome-open to view images/pdfs/whatever (which is terrible due to the aforementioned reasons), because scp'ing every time is even more painful. All my needs would be perfectly satisfied with something that combined ssh for some cli, and some kind of automated easy to set up and disable file updating utility (like dropbox without the third party server). Since I only ever need this stuff once in a blue moon ad hoc, setting up svn or something like that is just overkill. Example -- I want to run some code on a remote machine that plots a figure or pdflatex's some file and quickly view the output, without downloading a copy of all the code/data. I have yet to find a way to do this that isn't extremely awkward...

Re:Wayland is nothing until (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47053955)

I'm not entirely sure if this is what you want but have you looked into sshfs? I use it quite regularly without issue.

Re:Wayland is nothing until (1)

Knightman (142928) | about 2 months ago | (#47054235)

and some kind of automated easy to set up and disable file updating utility (like dropbox without the third party server)

BT Sync? http://www.bittorrent.com/sync [bittorrent.com]

Re:Wayland is nothing until (1)

martas (1439879) | about 2 months ago | (#47054253)

Huh, that's actually pretty interesting. Thanks for the link.

Re:Wayland is nothing until (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47054405)

How the f... do you get X not to work without admin rights on the remote machine? Everything is in the user program and libraries, unlike inferior competitors like VNC or RDP, which require setting up a forwarding service on the remote machine (RDP is preinstalled on Windows, but still requires setting up access).

As for SSH doing the trick, you should be using SSH if not on the LAN anyway (for security reasons - the X protocol is not encrypted), and even on the LAN it may be preferable to copying "magic cookies" around or doing stupid things with xhost.

Re:Wayland is nothing until (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47053889)

i'm confused; are you saying windows/osx don't have remote display support? [Win+R]mstsc[Enter] .. yep, works fine.

Re:Wayland is nothing until (1)

multi io (640409) | about 2 months ago | (#47054011)

It seems the real remote drawing / display technology these days is HTML/CSS, carried via HTTP. It even supports running client-provided code locally on the display server, as did NeWS and DPS 20 years ago, to render animations and depressed beveled buttons without incurring a server roundtrip (and Javascript is generally much nicer than PostScript -- you can even run the whole program on the display server if you want). And the protocol is a bit backwards in that the display server (aka "web browser"), rather than the client (aka "web server"), initiates the protocol requests.

[scnr]

Wayland is nothing until (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47054155)

What's the problem with VNC ?

Re:Wayland is nothing until (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47054207)

That, to give the impression of working without unacceptable latencies, it might need a dedicated 100Gb/s connection.
It is painful over 1Gb/s for CAD/CAM work (and no choice of running it locally because the software is node locked to the machine where it runs).

Re:Wayland is nothing until (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47054261)

In that case, I'd suggest solving the cause of the problem rather than shitting up next-gen display protocols with legacy crap that next-to-nobody needs.

Re:Wayland is nothing until (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 months ago | (#47054727)

Using remote desktop is the practical solution for his problem.

Re:Wayland is nothing until (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 2 months ago | (#47054859)

A long VGA cable run could be nicer, or these days there's beaming of HDMI on CAT6 for a bit more investment.

Re:Wayland is nothing until (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 months ago | (#47054981)

True. If the machine is in the same office, those might be viable options too.

Re:Wayland is nothing until (2)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 2 months ago | (#47054507)

The Wayland protocol will never have remote display support.

The compositor on the other hand already has it. I find it funny that Slashdot users don't understand this given how the article about it was posted on slashdot.

Re:Wayland is nothing until (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 months ago | (#47054725)

Wayland is nothing until there is good remote display support.

There is already remote desktop support [slashdot.org] in Wayland. It uses RDP and works for individual windows too.

Alright guys... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47053979)

This one looks almost, kinda-sorta useful and on its way to more adoption. This is obviously bad and against everything we stand for! I'm starting up a new WaylandX project on github (https://github.com/waylandx) to build a better one of these. Come and join me!

And not... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47054289)

a fuck was given

Clipboards? (2)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 2 months ago | (#47054347)

Does anyone know if Wayland has the nice dual clipboard system like X? Or are we going to be stuck with something hideously primitive like other well known operaing systems?

Re:Clipboards? (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 months ago | (#47054643)

Clipboard? It's a framebuffer with a compositor on top. Clipboards are a client problem (as are many other things).
Now do you get why the "X sux" stuff from Wayland fanboys is annoying? Wayland is designed to be something different to X with different goals. Those of us that "want to run software from 1996" are made fun of in Wayland presentations, which would be fine if they were not also telling us to stop using X.

Re:Clipboards? (5, Informative)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 2 months ago | (#47054777)

Clipboard? It's a framebuffer with a compositor on top. Clipboards are a client problem (as are many other things).

Well, no, it's not. It's also a keyboard and mouse input system.

It also deals with copy and paste and drag and drop:

http://lwn.net/Articles/491509... [lwn.net]

Because it's a windowing system and it turns out that just a compositor alone isn't enough (who knew, eh?). It's also interesting. Apparently Wayland implements passing of data by just passing a file descriptor, apparently instead of reimplementing 10 pages of ICCCM grot. The thing about the 10 pages of ICCCM grot is it's really REALLY well specified and a random person from the internet can come along, read the ICCCM, grok it (yes, I have actually implemented copy/paste and XDnD from the specs) and get it working. It's not that hard.

The wayland one seems poorly specified by comparison. For example they don't specify teeny-tiny details liekl whether the FD must be seekable, for example. So, do you have to write a local file, or can you pass a socket? Who knows! It's really easy to have a short, simple spec when it's full of ambiguity and people haven't had 26 years to beat it into a definitive, unambiguous state. Anyway, I digress.

Now do you get why the "X sux" stuff from Wayland fanboys is annoying?

Yes, but it's more annoying when it comes from the Wayland author FUDmonsters who understand X11 and yet still make silly claims about it. For example, from the link above, Packard claims:

X was created before there was MIME or Unicode, so there are many pages expended in the X specifications to do things that are more easily handled with MIME types and UTF-8 these days. For cut-and-paste and drag-and-drop, Wayland uses MIME-labeled UTF-8 encoded objects.

Well, that sounds all like OMG X sucks we need MIME and UTF-8. Well the thing is, in order to list types from a copy/paste transfer, applications exchange a string (i.e. atom) with the type name(s) available. And guess what? Almost everything these days except for plain text is exchanged using MIME types. If the MIME-type specifies UTF-8, then the data will be in UTF-8 format. So basically, X names types with a string, just like MIME, and MIME works *perfectly* without modifying or respecifying anything.

You can verify this easily: download and install a copy/paste debugger/sniffer and look at the list of types available that programs offer.

The ICCCM also specifies a few (non-MIME) types that you might like to support, such as TEXT, which maps perfectly on to text/plain and is all of 1/2 a line to implement (if(typeAtom == TEXT || typeAtom == textPlainAtom)...). And X11 sends arbitrary data (including NULs) because it represents data as data+length not a string, so you can exchange anything, such as UTF8.

Anyway, KP implies that that doesn't work with X11 copy and paste, whereas in truth it works perfectly and without any faff or hacking.

Wayland is designed to be something different to X with different goals.

Not so much. It's designed to replace X wholesale. It does windowing, compositing, input, copy/paste/DnD, and a bit opf inter client communication.

Those of us that "want to run software from 1996" are made fun of in Wayland presentations,

Yeah us with our legacy programs. From stroustrup:

"Legacy code" often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling.

Meanwhile, I shall keep using legacy programs productively. XTerm works amazingly well, still. gvim works great---though I find I sometimes have to compile it with GTK disabled and with XAW (seriously WTF??) support because GTK can't seem to get its shit in order with fonts and everytime ubuntu updates itself/reboots, the font size changes. Xfig is old but works really well within its domain for producing simple, effective figures.

etc etc blah blah.

I also use some more modern programs too. And they all work great together! Under Xorg, at least. Even better, they work with any window manager (yay for FVWM).

which would be fine if they were not also telling us to stop using X.

Yes but it's legacy! Don't you see? Also it intrduces multiple context switches! That means it's introducing while microseconds of latency between keyboard input and responce. Since my laptop is juiced to a refreshrate of 1MHz (yes, the graphics chip is currently on fire), I can tell by the pixels that the latency is so high. Or, I would if I ran a compositing WM, but I don't because I've never really seen the point.

And then there's the user hostile attidute of the devlopers. First they got rid of the killing of client grabs on Xorg because that's onlyu needed for buggy programs and shouldn't be needed. I'm glad all programs are bug free. Then they try to encourage strongly (thoug Wayland does not of course force it) client side decorations which again is user hostile because it takes control from the user and hands it to the application developers. And as a user, that sucks.

Has it got network transparency? (-1, Troll)

martin-boundary (547041) | about 2 months ago | (#47054549)

No? Then stop spamming slashdot with this "news". It's not news until there's working network transparency.

Re:Has it got network transparency? (2)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 2 months ago | (#47054679)

No, what IS news is self-righteous experts wanting a feature they don't use while not knowing an equivalent feature has already been merged into the compositor. I mean fuck it's not like there was a Slashdot notice about remote desktop support being added to Weston last year sometime. Oh wait ....

Please take your bitching elsewhere.

Re:Has it got network transparency? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 months ago | (#47054733)

No? Then stop spamming slashdot with this "news". It's not news until there's working network transparency.

Well, it happens to have network transparency already, so I guess that's a green light to continue spamming with Wayland news.

Re:Has it got network transparency? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47054761)

I'll tell you what *would* be news - if someone posted an actual legitimate use-case for a network-transparent desktop app that wasn't a bodge to get around some archaic CAM app that management would probably replace if your time was actually worth anything.

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>