Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wayland 1.0 Released, Not Yet Ready To Replace X11

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the adhd-induced-wheel-reinvention dept.

GUI 455

An anonymous reader writes "After being talked about for four years, Wayland 1.0 was released today. The Wayland 1.0 release doesn't mark it yet as being ready for Linux desktop usage but just being API/protocol stable for future expansion. Wayland will now maintain backwards compatibility going forward, but how much longer will it take to replace X11 on the Linux desktop? Quite a while seems likely."

cancel ×

455 comments

Hopefully another 25 years or more (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41736477)

X11 doesn't need replacing, and few need a replacement for X11 for any reason that doesn't boil down to not understanding X11.

Re:Hopefully another 25 years or more (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41736497)

I guess all of the X11 developers that are the ones developing Wayland don't understand X11 that well. You should send them a link to the classes you're teaching.

Re:Hopefully another 25 years or more (5, Insightful)

tqk (413719) | about 2 years ago | (#41737009)

I guess all of the X11 developers that are the ones developing Wayland don't understand X11 that well.

"Don't understand X11 that well", I don't know (though I'd doubt they don't understand X). As for whether X11 needs replacing; not here, no.

I do worry that they're ignoring the ideals of X, and focusing too much on cellphone/*pad interfaces, as opposed to the original X ideal (any device *should* be able to handle it, regardless of what your particular prejudices might be).

Does Fluxbox run on Wayland? If so, I'll try it.

There are very few X11 developers there... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41737471)

Those that are work on the X11 client...

The failure to understand history dooms them to repeat history, and reimplement things yet again... poorly.

Re:Hopefully another 25 years or more (3, Insightful)

colin_faber (1083673) | about 2 years ago | (#41736547)

Actually it sort of does. Theres so much legacy garbage in the current X protocol that just wastes resources and makes it nearly impossible to maintain.

As I don't actively maintain X I have no stake in this, but if it helps to motivate new generations of developers to dive into thats great.

I can also note that I think the model Wayland is employing seems more sane, given what we've learned over the years of model and X driver development (DRI anyone?).

Re:Hopefully another 25 years or more (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41736765)

I can also note that I think the model Wayland is employing seems more sane, given what we've learned over the years of model and X driver development

Well I can note that I think client-side decorations is so much bollocks.
Wayland seems to abdicate responsibility on a lot of stuff that really needs to work across the desktop consistently, and that X was solving commendably.

Re:Hopefully another 25 years or more (1)

tqk (413719) | about 2 years ago | (#41737071)

Theres so much legacy garbage in the current X protocol that just wastes resources and makes it nearly impossible to maintain.

I've heard much the same thing said about rxvt vs. xterm. I like xterm, and its devs have done brilliant stuff over the years keeping it relevant, fast, and working. rxvt does 99.999% of what xterm does, and does it well (except for corner cases).

Why do I feel like I'm stirring entrails?

Re:Hopefully another 25 years or more (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41737251)

rxvt may do 99.9999% of what xterm do, but xterm does less than 30% of what urxvt does. Not saying that real transparency or background blur is essential, but some of the features it add became to me.

Re:Hopefully another 25 years or more (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41736605)

Not you again. Wayland is being built by X developers, and several other prominent X developers have said it is a good thing.

Would you say that you understand X11 A) better, or B) worse, than the people who actually write code for Xorg?

Re:Hopefully another 25 years or more (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41736691)

Unfortunately, developers are the second worst group for understanding what users need. The only part of X11 that people need is network transparent remote display, but that's the one part that the developers are absolutely hell bent on removing.

Re:Hopefully another 25 years or more (1)

mdhoover (856288) | about 2 years ago | (#41736831)

+1. No remote display, no dice.

Re:Hopefully another 25 years or more (1)

smash (1351) | about 2 years ago | (#41737011)

X11 remote display can be added via a daemon. Like it is with OS X, Windows, etc.

Re:Hopefully another 25 years or more (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41737363)

Or, we could just keep X. Much better.

Re:Hopefully another 25 years or more (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41736907)

And how exactly does remote X with a modern UI toolkit differ from VNC?

Re:Hopefully another 25 years or more (2)

RightwingNutjob (1302813) | about 2 years ago | (#41736987)

It's native to the windowing system on both the local and remote machine and there is absolutely nothing I need to do to either system to pop up a remote display other than insert a 'DISPLAY=remote-host:0.0' in front of the command line.

vnc is faster (1)

Chirs (87576) | about 2 years ago | (#41737415)

Remote X is a pig once ping times increase due to the number of round trips required. VNC is far superior in that situation especially when it can be notified of changes efficiently.

Re:Hopefully another 25 years or more (3, Insightful)

anomaly256 (1243020) | about 2 years ago | (#41737527)

Remote vanilla X11 over even today's internet is fucking slow as balls and about as painful as being kicked in them. Even on a lan it can be pain if your client is generating too many unneeded events (try eclipse over ssh x11 forwarding some time). X11 does facilitate the use of, say, NX and VNC though to mitigate the problem. Does Wayland? If so then bring it on I say. As long as the end result is the same or better, how is it a bad thing?

Re:Hopefully another 25 years or more (1)

fikx (704101) | about 2 years ago | (#41736957)

A)

no question. I use the code, they make it. car analogy: who understands a car better (what it should do and how): the engineer or the driver?

Re:Hopefully another 25 years or more (-1, Troll)

tqk (413719) | about 2 years ago | (#41737117)

Not you again.

Fuck. Off. Asshole.

Application and Screen on Different Machines (5, Interesting)

billstewart (78916) | about 2 years ago | (#41736733)

The important feature about X Windows was Network Transparency - You could run an application on one computer with its screen output and keyboard and mouse input on a different computer. Sure, there are other ways to do it - lots of ssh sessions, or web browsing (especially with AJAX etc.), or competing window systems like NeWS, or screen emulators like VNC and Windows Remote Desktop - but fundamentally it's a lot cleaner to have some kind of network-transparent window system than to have an application need to drive a "screen" on its own machine.

25 years later, do we still need this? Yes! Virtual machines are taking over the computer business, so you can't expect the application to be running on your desktop (even if it _is_ running in a VM on top of your desktop), screens are a wide range of different sizes and capabilities (laptops, tablets, big monitors, etc., which often don't resemble the machine the app is running on), web browsers are getting used in increasingly complex ways because Windows didn't have a convenient X interface, and there's more and more ugliness around, and more waste of resources trying to emulate things that X did adequately well.

There are lots of good reasons to replace X, but Network Transparency is still the core feature, even if you want the application to have more control over the screen and its associated hardware than we had back in the 1980s, or if you want to move processing functions to different points between the client and the server (e.g. NeWS and NeXT's Display Postscript did some things differently, and Plan 9 and its successors had their own opinions about how to implement everything), but if Wayland doesn't offer Network Transparency yet, it's not an adequate X replacement.

Re:Application and Screen on Different Machines (4, Insightful)

mellon (7048) | about 2 years ago | (#41736837)

Nobody ever uses network transparency. Well, okay, perhaps a few thousand people do, but rounded to the nearest 1% of the total number of Windows or Mac users, _zero_ people use it. Network transparency should be a layer on top of the window system for those who need it, not something that's present and causing breakage by default.

Re:Application and Screen on Different Machines (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41736941)

Speak for yourself. I was just using the 'network transparency' features of X the other day, as well as NAS (Network Audio System) and going 'thank god this made it so easy!'

Literally all you had to do was have the nasd daemon running on the client and fire up the app on the server. Same deal with X. I was able to spit out my app with full audio across the network. I wouldn't want to try Quake or something over it, but I'm sure that given some work on X11 and 10G ethernet I could probably do that as well.

Honestly my problems at the moment are less with Wayland and more with them constantly fucking things up on the X11 front with the incessant streams of changes and deprecated features. In order to run MESA now you have to have a c++ compiler, and can't use any hardware other than Intel, AMD, or Nvidia (via nouveau) since all have been deprecated due to the removal of DRI1. Additionally despite YEARS of opportunity, there's still no inline way to have apps change display resolutions, so for those of us with 8/16 bit games we can't just fire them up, we have to run them in a dedicated 8 or 16 bit color X server, which oh by the way the latter doesn't work on any supported 3d hardware (MAYBE MAYBE R100/R200, although bother of those drivers are somewhat unreliable nowadays), and oh by the way we broke 8 bit palette support, so the former is in greyscale even on color displays (I ran into this after upgrading X on one of my laptops with an IGP345 on it. Horribly slow at 16/32 bit color, but with lots of 8 bit apps that'll run smooth).

It's not wayland that's FUBAR, it's how they've been handling X for the past however many years that is. They keep talking about 'improving' on X, but they can't even keep X displaying the same features it had 10 years ago due to inadequate testing, so what do you expect them to do in another 5 years when wayland is really 'mature'? Break more shit because it didn't matter to them and tack on new crap you don't care about.

That's just my 2c as an X user since the late 90s, having followed Utah-GLX, the starting of Mesa, The XF86/Xorg schism, and all the BS since.

Re:Application and Screen on Different Machines (4, Interesting)

tibit (1762298) | about 2 years ago | (#41736947)

It goes the other way: unless you design for network transparency from day one, you're not going to get it and have it perform well. There's no way to decently get network transparency as a layer on top of the window system. VNC and RDP are horrible kludges and perform like crap.

Re:Application and Screen on Different Machines (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 years ago | (#41737069)

It goes the other way: unless you design for network transparency from day one, you're not going to get it and have it perform well. There's no way to decently get network transparency as a layer on top of the window system. VNC and RDP are horrible kludges and perform like crap.

Maybe with all the fancy animations and shadows and transparency and 3D effects it just *isn't* going to work well? I can't be arsed to look up the bandwidth or latency of the 16x PCIe connection to my graphics card but I'm pretty sure it's off the charts compared to my fairly speed fiber Internet connection. Seems to me that either HTML if you want a "generic" client or a thick client that only sends and retrieves the data you need beats trying to push pixels around. Yes it's convenient in that all your applications work remotely like they do locally but I can't for the life of me imagine that it's actually efficient.

Re:Application and Screen on Different Machines (1)

tibit (1762298) | about 2 years ago | (#41737123)

All those things nominally take comparatively little data to represent before they hit the rendering pipeline. Alas, with X11, VNC and RDP as they now stand, you push bitmaps around, and that sucks bandwidth like nobody's business. Wayland doesn't do enough. To be efficient at network transparency, all of the displaying needs to be done from a scene graph, and the application is then modifying the scene graph on whatever display it's being shown on. That's taking what made X11 well performing back in the day to the logical conclusion. Sure as heck you'll need some decent resources on the display, as plenty of heavy lifting is done there, but hey, that's distributed computing for you. Web browsers do the same, web would grind to a halt if servers had to render everything for the surfers...

Even displaying video on such a decently designed system should be pushing compressed video stream to the display node, as that takes obviously much less bandwidth than the decompressed stream. If you're compositing some controls over the video, they will be in the scene graph and the display will do all the magic needed for it to show as intended. The bandwidth needed for that is equal to the bandwidth for the video stream -- compare that to the staggering pipe X11, VNC and RDP would need for the same functionality.

Re:Application and Screen on Different Machines (1)

RightwingNutjob (1302813) | about 2 years ago | (#41737001)

You are obviously neither a programmer nor a true user of information technology. Also, plenty of Mac users install X11 on their Macs specifically so that they can run stuff on Unix/Linux servers in X11 sessions.

Re:Application and Screen on Different Machines (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41737035)

100% right. For Linux to take off on the desktop we need good looks, high performance and a consistent interface across many apps - not layer upon layer of compatibility cruft. Network transparency is an extremely niche feature mostly useful for IT professionals. It certainly wouldn't be on the shopping list for any typical home or business user.

Too many layers and abstractions leads to weird bugs and inconsistencies that are hard to fix (or in some cases hard to agree who even "owns" the issue). Just one recent example I noticed in the latest Ubuntu is that if an app is autostarted from a .desktop file, instead of suppressing the classic Gnome tray icon like Unity normally does, it can load before the panel and helpfully appears in the middle of the desktop... genius!

Re:Application and Screen on Different Machines (1)

fikx (704101) | about 2 years ago | (#41737103)

few != not important
a small percentage of people in the US ever use 911...so get rid of it?
and for all those who say X11 is crufty and has lots of bad code in it: YES! but, don't mix/confuse the implementation with the feature. It's the feature that is important, the X11 implementation needs some work, but it functions fine now AND NO OTHER REPLACEMENT WINDOW SYSTEM IS OFFERING IT!

Re:Application and Screen on Different Machines (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41736963)

The problem with remote X is that most of the X API is not used anymore. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all X itself is used for anymore (with modern UI toolkits like GTK) is drawing pixmaps and input events, Everything else is done in extensions. So remote X comes down to receiving input events and sending pixmaps, which is what VNC does. Why bother putting something like that in the core of Wayland when it could be easily added later as an extension?

Re:Application and Screen on Different Machines (3, Insightful)

10101001 10101001 (732688) | about 2 years ago | (#41736973)

And yet, Network Transparency is one of X's biggest weaknesses as well. The truth is, X's chief purpose in providing Network Transparency was in providing thin client/mainframe/whatever support over a LAN/WAN. This is incredibly transparent in a few ways: (1) there isn't a lot of heavy effort put into minimizing the data stream, (2) nearly any sort of network hiccup will kill a connection and hence the client--something almost assured on the internet for programs running long enough--, and (3) you can't move a client from one server to another. To speak of your VM example, in a more idealized version of Network Transparency, the VM(s) hosting MS Office could be moved from one machine to another and users would at most notice a pause during the checkpoint/transfer/client address update. That's something entirely out of the reach of X. Meanwhile, I think people are more interested in things like (a) starting a program at home on their desktop, (b) continuing to use it on their smartphone, and (c) finally moving to a desktop at their destination. Conceivably, the desktop itself would not be running most the programs but simply be a nexus of links to clients on the phone, on the desktop, and online; ie, the point of the desktop would be more to coordinate what is being run as it has more capacity to checkpoint/maintain/log.

In short, I don't think X really lived much up to the network transparency ideal. Sure, it can fool you for a while, but the times it fails it fails pretty catastrophically. X was really conceived of in another time which ironically presumed higher reliability. I certainly agree that Wayland stepping further away from network transparency is the wrong path. It just seems clear that pointing at X isn't really that useful considering how many things it gets wrong for today's environment.

Re:Application and Screen on Different Machines (5, Informative)

oursland (1898514) | about 2 years ago | (#41736989)

Hi Bill,

You have a good point, but unfortunately the X system is fundamentally flawed at the technical level for the purpose you describe. When X was originally developed, graphics were simple aliased lines and bitmapped fonts. In the modern computer environment, this has presented itself as a grave hindrance to the usability of X.

Modern applications depend on graphics toolkits, such as GTK and Qt, which render in to X pixbufs and finally those are rendered on the display. The process by which this happens depends upon copying these toolkit-rendered images from buffer to buffer several times, quite needlessly to fit within the X framework. This is moreso true over a network connection. The very nature of modern programs has progressed way beyond what X was intended and optimized for. It is like trying to use a MUD infrastructure designed for textual interaction as the basis of a modern GUI framework, it simply isn't the right tool for the job.

An anecdote, this weekend I decided I was going to work from home. So I ssh into my work computer (6 miles, 20+ Mbps connection), and fire up an X forwarded my graphical editor session. Things were slow, but not unusable until I did something that caused a series of tooltips to be rendered. The session locked up for 2 minutes before I killed it. I then fired up a terminal-based text editor and got to work. X's network transparency was not beneficial. But there are many network protocols that have been designed for the purpose of remotely operating modern GUI applications such as VNC and RDP. These have been designed from the ground up to provide the functionality we expect on today's systems.

And before I finish my tirade, I, too, was a die-hard X fan until I decided to see what the Xorg folks had to say. Keith Packard (a lead developer on Xorg, inventor of Cairo and much more that you depend on when you fire up your workstation), has been a hard proponent of Wayland. He's given many talks outlining the design failings of X and how Wayland resolves them. I recommend you google "Keith Packard Wayland" and see what you find.

Regards,
oursland

Re:Application and Screen on Different Machines (3, Insightful)

smash (1351) | about 2 years ago | (#41737025)

X11 "network transparency" sucks. VNC is better. RDP is better, ICA is better. And network transparency can be provided in X11 compatibility mode with a daemon if required - like it is on OS X and Windows.

Sometime around 2000-2002 Windows and OSX added (4, Insightful)

Burz (138833) | about 2 years ago | (#41737175)

...network abstraction layers to their GUIs, specifically to enable people to mirror and share their desktops efficiently.

The mundane, non-vertically integrated *nix world still doesn't have this ability after all these years. X11 can't mirror/share, its also laggy over broadband connections, VNC is primitive and slow, etc. The NoMachine people have claimed they can support screen sharing in NX, but I haven't seen a working example yet (and those features are in the proprietary version anyway); otherwise they did a good job of making X11 usably network transparent for use cases not contained within a single LAN (i.e. most situations).

Personally, I'm tired of seeing all the hand-waving about X11's network transparency. It doesn't help in the vast majority of instances where people want to share an app or screen during a teleconference. X11 is not advanced in this respect -- just sadly out of touch. It mainly addresses the rather outdated use case where you have a handful of engineer types who open a CLI and type an ssh command, possibly fiddle with the display variable, then type in the desired app as a command so they can run one expensive, customized app on a server in a specially cooled room 3 floors down.

Re:Sometime around 2000-2002 Windows and OSX added (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41737369)

Or me, sitting with a netbook on my couch, ssh'ed into a desktop machine that runs all my apps.

Or the guy in my office who uses it to mix and match half a dozen applications from various machines around the lab.

It's a featured used every day by many people, and if Wayland doesn't provide it, then Wayland is not ready for prime time. It is welcome to provide other things, that's fine, but it must provide this one to be taken seriously by the Linux/Unix crowd, because we're accustomed to having this ability.

Re:Hopefully another 25 years or more (1)

mellon (7048) | about 2 years ago | (#41736825)

Well, it certainly doesn't need replacing with another X server. What it needs replacing with is something a little less complex and wonderful.

When IPv6 is ready? (1)

dacarr (562277) | about 2 years ago | (#41736487)

Perhaps this is going to be ready when the IPv6 flag day is?

Re:When IPv6 is ready? (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | about 2 years ago | (#41736653)

Every major OS shipping today supports IPv6 natively, the same with all new networking equipment these days. IPv6 already works. Wayland isn't quite there.

... and I thought E is going to replace X11 (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 2 years ago | (#41736881)

M.any years ago they were talking about Enlightenment wanting to replace X11

While E has gone to E17(still beta), it's not replacing X11 yet.

I dunno much about the project that's the topic of TFA, so I won't know how successful it would be in replacing X11

Re:... and I thought E is going to replace X11 (1)

Virtex (2914) | about 2 years ago | (#41737007)

E17 should be out in a few days [phoronix.com] . But even so, E17 runs on top of X11 rather than running as a replacement. Maybe if Wayland takes off, Enlightenment can be ported to run there instead of X11, but we'll have to wait to see where things go from here.

Re:... and I thought E is going to replace X11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41737087)

Far out, i remember E16 being released and then forgot all about it....
I thought they'd be up to E100 by now! Are they trying a Mac OS X style version numbering?

Re:... and I thought E is going to replace X11 (1)

styrotech (136124) | about 2 years ago | (#41737361)

M.any years ago they were talking about Enlightenment wanting to replace X11

You're not thinking of the Berlin Consortium or something are you? I think they changed their name to something catchier later, but it escapes me (<sarcasm>well that obviously worked</sarcasm>).

Enlightenment was always intended to be something on top of X11 as far as I can remember (could be wrong of course).

Re:When IPv6 is ready? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41737271)

This is not quite true, many issues even with the implementation standards remain unresolved, and a lot of the spec has not been implemented in Unix derivatives. Then, there are a lot tools that would be needed that are missing. Please read the book "IPv6 In Practice" for more information.

Version numbering (2, Insightful)

Rennt (582550) | about 2 years ago | (#41736541)

Oh, we'll call it 1.0, but I'm sure distros won't start shipping it by default because we said it's not ready. Why are you pulling that face? Worked for KDE didn't it?

what about xorg? (3, Interesting)

sayfawa (1099071) | about 2 years ago | (#41736545)

I did, at least, skim the article, and I still don't know. Didn't X11 just (as in last few years) get replaced with x.org? This is another replacement already? Ok, before posting, I google and see this [wikipedia.org] :

What's different now is that a lot of infrastructure has moved from the X server into the kernel (memory management, command scheduling, mode setting) or libraries (cairo, pixman, freetype, fontconfig, pango etc) and there is very little left that has to happen in a central server process. ... [An X server has] a tremendous amount of functionality that you must support to claim to speak the X protocol, yet nobody will ever use this. ... This includes code tables, glyph rasterization and caching, XLFDs (seriously, XLFDs!) Also, the entire core rendering API that lets you draw stippled lines, polygons, wide arcs and many more state-of-the-1980s style graphics primitives. For many things we've been able to keep the X.org server modern by adding extension such as XRandR, XRender and COMPOSITE ... With Wayland we can move the X server and all its legacy technology to an optional code path. Getting to a point where the X server is a compatibility option instead of the core rendering system will take a while, but we'll never get there if [we] don't plan for it.

which bored me to tears, so I'm no longer interested, but for those who are....

Re:what about xorg? (4, Informative)

damnbunni (1215350) | about 2 years ago | (#41736565)

x.org is not a replacement for X11. x.org is X11.

It's an implementation of an X11 server.

x.org split off from XFree86 over licensing arguments, if I recall properly.

Re:what about xorg? (4, Informative)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#41736687)

The licensing thing was basically just the last straw in a long line of disagreements, especially the lack of innovation and communicating and coordinating with the rest of the community, like projects such as KDE and Gnome.

If you think x.org's development is glacial, it's nothing like what XFree86's BS was.

--
BMO

Re:what about xorg? (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 years ago | (#41736863)

x.org split off from XFree86 over licensing arguments, if I recall properly.

That was the breaking point but there was very much tension between XFree86's Core Team and the other developers over the development model. Both the developers and distros rapidly abandoned XFree86 so their first release under the new license was essentially already dead and buried. It was something of an eye opener to see how quickly you could go from being president for XFree86, used in pretty much every form of *nix systems to having an empty title while all the people and all the work continued over at x.org. It really goes to show that open source projects are at the mercy of the grassroots, if you act like a dick or an idiot your project will be forked and dead like if someone pulled the rug out from under you.

Re:what about xorg? (2)

Smartcowboy (679871) | about 2 years ago | (#41736645)

As I understand it, x.org replaced xfree86. Both are X11 implementation.

Re:what about xorg? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41736697)

[An X server has] a tremendous amount of functionality

X servers were working fine on resource-constrained Unix systems 20 years ago.

The idea that they're somehow too bloated compared to a modern UI subsystem is complete and utter bullshit.

It just makes me annoyed how everything becomes layer upon layer of yet more inefficient crap, yet we're supposed to worry about comparably simple "legacy protocols" possibly still having some features that could be gradually deprecated.

Re:what about xorg? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41736961)

Actually if you were to look at it, the boat about coincides with the 'new developers' getting ahold of it. Go look at the X server code sizes prior to 2001ish and POST 2001ish, and keep in mind that's WITHOUT MESA.

I didn't see a whole lot of new hardware being added, but the code bloat was HUGE. like 3-5x the old sizes and still growing. X 3.3.3 was like sub 10 megs of archives, and it's now up to like 100(!)

Re:what about xorg? (4, Informative)

tibit (1762298) | about 2 years ago | (#41737013)

The deal is that the way of rendering that both X11 and windows GDI support is 20 years behind the times. Nobody renders like that. The only way to reuse such an API to render modern UIs (without using GPU functionality) is to generate bitmaps using various modern rendering libraries and toolkits (like Qt does!) and push those to the screen. Thus, for a modern application, X11 and GDI are bitblt and input with lots of other junk nobody cares about. Yeah, X servers were working fine on resource constrained Unix systems 20 years ago, but then the UIs back then consisted of relatively simple primitives that the X server could actually draw. These days the X server doesn't support the primitives the application designers need, because to do so would mean reimplementing, for example, a path based compositing renderer.

The legacy APIs are useless, they don't scale anymore. Back in times of X, any application that drew anything complex had to maintain its own scene graph of some sort and maintain its own space partitioning to choose what to redraw. This led to obscene duplication of effort, and various applications had their own glitches, shortcomings and inefficiencies because everyone was reimplementing what wasn't all that easy to implement correctly in the first place.

Given the graphics hardware available today, those legacy APIs of GDI and X vintage expose a model that is so far detached from how the hardware processes the geometry, that applications that merely use the API can't leverage the available graphics horsepower. IOW, if you code to X or GDI APIs, your application will perform poorly and there's no way for something on the implementation side of the API to fix it for you.

When designing an application of any sort, the graphics API needs to present primitives and abstractions that translate well into efficient uses of graphics hardware. I'm sure people who deal with accelerating modern frameworks like Qt will tell you all there's to know about how broken the legacy API is when faced with modern hardware.

Re:what about xorg? (2, Interesting)

smash (1351) | about 2 years ago | (#41737057)

Requirements for a display server were different 20 years ago. They weren't pushing around true colour bitmaps over the wan, video, openGL, etc. They were (realstically) rendering a few xterms, simple static bitmaps and not a hell of a lot else.

Open source doesn't deliver? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41736567)

I can't believe it - one project full of ego and piss doesn't actually live up to the promise of world domination?

Who could believe something like that would happen??

Good enough for Ubuntu (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41736611)

Shuttleworth will use it! He'll use anything!

Re:Good enough for Ubuntu (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | about 2 years ago | (#41736669)

He already said years ago that he intends for Ubuntu to use it as soon as it is ready. I expect Ubuntu will likely be the first major distro to do so.

Re:Good enough for Ubuntu (4, Interesting)

socceroos (1374367) | about 2 years ago | (#41736675)

Yep, the issue with constantly pushing forwards and looking for the next new thing means that you can periodically make a bad choice. Shuttleworth, while some of his descisions haven't been the best, has been instrumental in pushing the Linux desktop to where it is today. Linux has never enjoyed so many desktop users. That brings good and bad, but its still an overall positive.

Why are graphics awesome on Android? (1, Interesting)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about 2 years ago | (#41736629)

I've used various Linux distros for 13+ years, and have always been disappointed in the horrible desktop graphics. Compared to a Windows machine, a comparable Linux rig is normally a miserable graphics experience. I was shocked the first time I got my hands on a Xoom tablet - the graphics are by FAR one of the best features of the Android platform. I can't for the life of me understand how there can be such an extreme difference between graphics in desktop linux distros compared to the gorgeous and snappy graphics under Android. And I'm not even running garbage graphic cards - one of my machines has a very modern nVidia card that plays all the latest games under Windows, but still handles poorly on Linux. From a technical perspective, I can't understand how there could be such an absurd difference, other than that the Android kernel is a fork, and clearly the Android kernel developers are far more concerned about creating a pleasant and useful graphical experience?

Re:Why are graphics awesome on Android? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41736667)

Um, isn't the "Android kernel" Linux? Maybe they just have better closed-source drivers for the graphics hardware on Android tablets.

Re:Why are graphics awesome on Android? (2)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | about 2 years ago | (#41736677)

...or... they have google money to hire artists.

I, for one, am a nerd who appreciates what artists, managers, and, yes, even sales folks do to sell what I make.

Usually you get what you pay for. Sometimes you get less, sometimes you get more.

Re:Why are graphics awesome on Android? (3, Interesting)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about 2 years ago | (#41736727)

I agree that the artwork is much better, but the responsiveness under Android is also clearly better, fonts are much nicer, videos and games play smoothly and flawlessly. Hell - my Android phone puts my Linux workstation with its $200 nVidia graphics card to shame.

Re:Why are graphics awesome on Android? (1)

armanox (826486) | about 2 years ago | (#41736787)

I'm glad yours does, my Droid phone is miserable when it comes to graphics. Very slow, unresponsive, and freezes often. Never had that issue with any of my nVidia cards and Linux (Geforce 3 was the main one I did Linux gaming on (oh NWN), more recently 9800GT, GT460, and my other box a Quadro FX1800). ATi cards haven't done as nicely (especially integrated in laptops).

Re:Why are graphics awesome on Android? (1)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about 2 years ago | (#41736813)

Samsung Android phone is very nice - I log it on to my home wireless network, and get better youtube and live TV performance than on any of my laptops or desktops. So strange to me though - seems like the laptops and desktops have far more system resources.

Re:Why are graphics awesome on Android? (1)

styrotech (136124) | about 2 years ago | (#41737531)

Watching online video on Linux probably means using Flash which has awful performance on Linux.

Your phone is possibly (I'm guessing) using a nice native hardware accelerated video codec.

Re:Why are graphics awesome on Android? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41736685)

How does someone run Linux AND comment on slashdot and understands so little about the stack they use and frankly technology as a whole. You make me laugh.

Re:Why are graphics awesome on Android? (1)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about 2 years ago | (#41736943)

You are correct to an extent - I run Linux, and am able to administer my work stations and optimize performance for my tasks, but I am by no means a developer. I guess that's why I asked the question - I really don't understand why there is such a noticeable difference.

Re:Why are graphics awesome on Android? (1, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | about 2 years ago | (#41736701)

I'm confused. When Vista came out with their Aero effects, it was a massive CPU and memory hog in addition to requiring GPU power. Compiz on the other hand ran on very basic hardware and did far more.

In Linux I have more control over font rendering and sub-pixel hinting.

In what way has Linux desktop graphics lagged at all? Mac OS X and Linux have led the way while Windows has followed poorly. And in case you haven't been paying attention, Windows 8 is coming out. It is 2012, and they still haven't figured out how to scale down to small displays, and scale up to very high resolution displays.

http://techreport.com/review/23631/how-windows-8-scaling-fails-on-high-ppi-displays [techreport.com]

Re:Why are graphics awesome on Android? (1, Interesting)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about 2 years ago | (#41736767)

I'm just talking about my personal experience. I often have dual-booted on the same system over the years, and right now I have two hard drives on my workstation - one that boots into Linux, one that boots into Windows. The difference in graphics rendering between Linux and Windows on the same equipment has always been clear - Windows has always handled graphics-intensive work much more smoothly. So why are graphics under Android so shockingly vivid and smooth?

I continue to run Linux because it can run circles around Windows for similar processor-intensive work - for example, I do a lot of OCR of scanned documents. On a large batch, I can get the OCR done in half the time under Linux compared with Windows.

Re:Why are graphics awesome on Android? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41737083)

Don't confuse the slowness of GTK and friends with X11. Most of people's feelings of slowness on Linux come from those toolkits which don't support backing store.
  X11 itself is lightning fast even on a 486 -- I should know, I'm crazy enough to run it on one.

Wayland seems like a Not Invented Here project. These things are why we have two major toolkits, three sound layers, and dozens of half-finished music players. I.E. another instance of nerds wasting time reinventing a wheel that already works just fine.

Re:Why are graphics awesome on Android? (0)

smash (1351) | about 2 years ago | (#41737077)

Uh. When compiz first came out, you had a choice of 3d rendered desktop with inability to run openGL apps, or vice versa. Vista transparently kept running 3d applications.

Re:Why are graphics awesome on Android? (2)

Enderandrew (866215) | about 2 years ago | (#41737109)

Vista was released 5 years ago. The very first release of Compiz had that problem, but Compiz was handling 3D desktops and openGL at the same time just fine 5 years ago.

Re:Why are graphics awesome on Android? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41736879)

two reasons
1. Android has a lot of companies working on it constantly to give it nice pretty graphics. They sell a product that requires it. Desktop Linux, to a fair degree, does not.
2. Linux desktop is hacked together from thousands of seperate pices of software. That it works out of the box at all is an achievement.
IMHO GUI's have been pretty good on linux - I'm have been able to customise it how I want. Where it's fallen down has always been in programs working together and consistancy. For example, controling the GUI without a mouse needed extra setup. On XP and prior, once you know shortcuts, it is possible to work without a mouse at all, out of the box - windows install and all. Note this has been becoming less and less accessable.

Re:Why are graphics awesome on Android? (1)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about 2 years ago | (#41736981)

Agreed - I guess its just the money poured into Android, and the urgency by Google and partners to keep pace with the competition from Apple. Too bad we still don't have a version of Desktop Android - I think it would be a very useful alternative, and quite popular.

Re:Why are graphics awesome on Android? (4, Interesting)

ADRA (37398) | about 2 years ago | (#41736999)

Google invested a lot of money to get their Application client stacks to work very well with a sane OpenGL implementation, and OEM's shipping Android make sure that there are sane OpenGL implementations on Linux. The later cannot be said for any of the desktop players that have dropped the ball due to lack of interest for well over a decade.

Android proves that graphics on Linux can be quite successful functional, but it also proves at how little interest existing industry heavy weights have at supporting Linux in general. The question now looms, can AMD, Nvidia, Intel, and co continually give half hearted attempts at supporting Linux when their markets are now in more danger than they ever have before? Can they continually look a blind eye to one of the fastest growing consumer electronics segments in a long while? Time will tell, and the drivers (and standards bodies) will be the tell tale sign that they can truely embrase a world outside Windows PC's.

Re:Why are graphics awesome on Android? (3, Informative)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about 2 years ago | (#41737067)

You are absolutely correct on all points. Its a shame that graphics support for Linux has been treated so poorly by so many companies for such a long time. Once again, it points to the clear need for a Desktop version of Android -- with the superior graphics performance and the enormous number of apps, it would be an instant game-changer in the PC market.

Re:Why are graphics awesome on Android? (1)

tibit (1762298) | about 2 years ago | (#41737059)

Because any X application that doesn't render using OpenGL can't really do much else than generate bitmaps and blit them to the screen if you're expecting any modern style of UI (vs. legacy polygons and arcs only). Since everyone and their grandma reinvents various layers of those bitmap-making functionality over an over, it all looks like crap and performs like crap. It's hard for developers to focus on making things look good when the platform they develop on (X + various libraries that sit on top of it) performs poorly, is buggy, and often is fragmented as hell and lacks cohesion. Higher-level all-in-one frameworks like Qt at least try to provide one design for the entire stack, whether you want to paint just a line or a whole scene. When you get into GTK land, there's a bazillion pieces all done by different people. Other frameworks, like Tk or wxWidgets, are a bit behind the times in their capabilities and make it hard to get things to look modern.

Re:Why are graphics awesome on Android? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41737133)

Tk or wxWidgets, are a bit behind the times in their capabilities and make it hard to get things to look modern.

Exactly what do you mean by modern?

Increased performance? (3, Interesting)

Smartcowboy (679871) | about 2 years ago | (#41736637)

Imagine recreating xlib so it doesn't communicate with an X server but directly draws things on the local screen, maybe in a multithreaded fashion. In such a scenario, the ability to share a display between many programs would be lost or alternatively a badly behaviored program could disrupt the other's windows. What kind of increased performance would be obtained (if any) by replacing IPC, as used in X11 (and in wayland too?) for drawing and use in process fonctions instead?

How long? (4, Interesting)

whoever57 (658626) | about 2 years ago | (#41736665)

but how much longer will it take to replace X11 on the Linux desktop? Quite a while seems likely."

Try never. Yes, I know that it should be possible to write a Wayland client that provides X11 server capability, but in that case, it is the Wayland client that is replacing X11, not Wayland.

Seriously, though, the Wayland effort appears to be throwing out every advantage the X11 display had over the Windows display for a replacement that will probably never be quite as good as a Windows. I just hope that developers of programs which currently support X11 continue to support X11, or my life will get much more difficult. In fact, for much of what I do, without X11 support (and only Wayland display supported), I would probably be better off with a Windows desktop instead of a Linux desktop.

Re:How long? (4, Insightful)

MBCook (132727) | about 2 years ago | (#41736917)

Seriously, though, the Wayland effort appears to be throwing out every advantage the X11 display had over the Windows display for a replacement that will probably never be quite as good as a Windows.

Emphasis is mine. Other than network transparency, what advantages did X11 have that Wayland doesn't? What other advantages did X11 have period?

Losing network transparency will effect some people, but there are some solutions to that. I'd wager the majority of linux GUIs deployed in the world don't use that feature (between embedded stuff like TiVos, normal desktops, TVs running Linux, etc). But I can tell you from more than 10 years of following Linux development that no one seems to actually like X11. From what I've read the various GUI developers seem to love Wayland compared X and can't wait for it to take over. X seems to be a giant ball of mud that's always getting in peoples way, hampering performance, and a pain in the ass to configure. The fact that it handles hardware setup, drawing, input, network transparency, fonts, 3D, and so much more it's clearly not following the unix philosophy of small tools doing one job.

Every time Wayland comes up, people come out of the woodwork to declare it a failure because it won't run over a network, but that's the only real gripe I've seen. You say there are others, I'm curious to know what they are.

Re:How long? (5, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | about 2 years ago | (#41736975)

Every time Wayland comes up, people come out of the woodwork to declare it a failure because it won't run over a network, but that's the only real gripe I've seen. You say there are others, I'm curious to know what they are.

Network transparency is very useful for administering servers. It is very useful to run the various GUI programs that I run on various servers on our office network. Wayland supporters have suggested using VNC for that, but it misses the point, since that implies one VNC session per remote machine, which means multiple VNC sessions, each with its own window manager, issues with copying and pasting, etc..

The other key advantage that X11 has: if the application is mis-behaving the application's window can still be controlled by the window manager. Ever seen windows on a Windows desktop that cannot be minimized? Wayland is bringing that to Linux.

Re:How long? (1)

Dwedit (232252) | about 2 years ago | (#41736995)

I think Windows fixed this in XP. I've seen programs that stop responding still be able to be minimized or force-closed with the X.

Re:How long? (2, Informative)

smash (1351) | about 2 years ago | (#41737091)

I think you'll find there are far more people doing this via RDP, ICA or VNC, quite happily than there are via X11.

Re:How long? (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about 2 years ago | (#41737225)

the last 4 places I've worked only used RDP or ICA for displaying windows apps on Linux. VNC has only ever been a last resort protocol. X11's network transparency is the only way to get stripped down Linux installs for things like Oracle and their crappy dependance on a working X11 display (local or remote)

Re:How long? (2)

whoever57 (658626) | about 2 years ago | (#41737431)

I think you'll find there are far more people doing this via RDP, ICA or VNC, quite happily than there are via X11.

RDP on a Linux server? I don't think so.

As I pointed out, VNC is a solution to admin a single server, as soon as you have more than one, then you need multiple VNC sessions, which is ugly.

What I typically use is a single VNC session on one machine in the LAN, from which I run lots of X11 programs on various different systems (sending their displays to the VNC session). Then I can access the VNC session from home or work, giving me persistent sessions, reasonably fast WAN access, all my admin programs grouped together in one set (the VNC session) all without having to deal with multiple VNC sessions.

Re:How long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41737483)

Cant' speak to RDP, but VNC does screen scraping and sends bitmaps across the network. On my local network (gigabit), VNC is a bloated pig. X11 tunneled over ssh kicks the shit out of VNC in usability of remote apps. It's not even close. VNC is borderline unusable, while with X11, for most apps I can't even tell they are not running locally. Granted, for some 3D apps that isn't true, but for most 2D apps, it performs as if they are running on the local box.

VNC is pig.

Re:How long? (2, Funny)

RightwingNutjob (1302813) | about 2 years ago | (#41737065)

Every time Wayland comes up, people come out of the woodwork to declare it a failure because it won't run over a network, but that's the only real gripe I've seen. You say there are others, I'm curious to know what they are.

Every time the electric car comes up, people come out of the woodwork to declare it a failure because it won't go more than 100 miles without a long recharge, but that's the only real gripe I've seen. You say there are others, I'm curious to know what they are. Every time the web appliance comes up, people come out of the woodwork to declare it a failure because it won't do anything besides surf the web, but that's the only real gripe I've seen. You say there are others, I'm curious to know what they are. Every time the Segway comes up, people come out of the woodwork to declare it a failure because it's too expensive and can't actually live up to the promises of changing urban design, but that's the only real gripe I've seen. You say there are others, I'm curious to know what they are. Do the words "deal-breaking deficiency" mean anything?

Re:How long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41737189)

Well, obviously having been around for decades it has the incumbency advantage -- all major toolkits support it, there are X servers for Linux, BSD, Solaris, Mac, Windows, Android, etc., and there are drivers already written.
Existing solutions for glue like IME, copy/paste, drag and drop...

It has the window manager as a separate component, giving users free choice between composing window managers, tiling window managers, etc, independent of what desktop and applications they run.

Re:How long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41737291)

backwards and forwards compatibility. I still can't believe that somebody would throw away a decade of compatiblity for NO GOOD REASON. (They admit that they could achieve everything Wayland does by extending X.)

Re:How long? (1)

MadMaverick9 (1470565) | about 2 years ago | (#41737313)

Losing network transparency will effect some people, but there are some solutions to that.

Why do I need to find a solution for something that already works today? That's just stupid and a waste of everybody's time.

Re:How long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41737335)

Replaceable WMs is a good thing, and AFAIK Wayland calls for that to be baked into the server, not user serviceable. History has told me that I will never agree with the defaults that those motherfuckers who create distros provide. I need a WM that doesn't suck.

Re:How long? (1)

rnturn (11092) | about 2 years ago | (#41736979)

"In fact, for much of what I do, without X11 support (and only Wayland display supported), I would probably be better off with a Windows desktop instead of a Linux desktop."

I wonder if you haven't cracked the code. I see Wayland as just one more thing to make Linux more like Windows. (Like that's even a goal that the Linux community should be aspiring to.)

Personally, I would rather have a root canal without anesthetic than administer UNIX/Linux systems using a Windows desktop. If it weren't for Cygwin having a Windows desktop would be intolerable. Pity there isn't a way (at least I have seen one yet) to implement multiple workspaces on a Windows system.

Re:How long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41737207)

Dexpot is an application that you can use to implement multiple workspaces. There is a lot to configure and can be hard to figure out at first, but it works for me.

Re:How long? (1)

sl3xd (111641) | about 2 years ago | (#41737195)

but how much longer will it take to replace X11 on the Linux desktop? Quite a while seems likely."

Try never. Yes, I know that it should be possible to write a Wayland client that provides X11 server capability, but in that case, it is the Wayland client that is replacing X11, not Wayland.

Seriously, though, the Wayland effort appears to be throwing out every advantage the X11 display had over the Windows display for a replacement that will probably never be quite as good as a Windows. I just hope that developers of programs which currently support X11 continue to support X11, or my life will get much more difficult. In fact, for much of what I do, without X11 support (and only Wayland display supported), I would probably be better off with a Windows desktop instead of a Linux desktop.

A couple of things:

1.) Wayland isn't trying to be X.
- Every 'native' Wayland program will have to be specifically compiled for Wayland.
- Wayland has an in-development X11 server, where X.org uses Wayland as a frame buffer (instead of X.org providing its own). This is really more like Xquartz or any of the X11 implementations on Windows. Neither OS X nor Windows can run X11 apps natively, and neither will Wayland.

2.) Wayland's policy towards network transparency is best described in their FAQ: "that is outside the scope of Wayland." They have no intention of providing a native mechanism for network transparency in Wayland, period. The FAQ then points to the decidedly non-transparent VNC and RFB, and finally to simply bolting X11 onto Wayland. I remember a quote from a Wayland presentation with respect to network transparency: It'll be "whatever you want it to be, baby" - a rather sarcastic way of saying "because you'll have to code it yourself".

While they claim that network transparency is "orthogonal" to what Wayland is doing, I suspect that is far from the truth.

As a build master for quite a lot of software, this makes me begs the question: If I'm going to have to compile it for X11 to have network transparency to begin with, then why in the world would I even bother with Wayland? I'll just compile the apps for X11, ignore Wayland entirely. Toolkits like Qt, GTK, or wxWindows may be able to support a fallback from direct Wayland to X11... but if we're still stuck with X11, then why are we bothering with Wayland to begin with?

I don't anticipate Wayland's uptake to be swift. It's not a replacement for X, and for most early use cases, you'll have to run both Wayland and X11 just to run the apps you want to run.
- The toolkits aren't ready: I don't know which version of GTK is to support Wayland, but I do know it'll be supported by Qt5, which isn't out.
- After that, there'll be the massive task of re-compiling everything for both Wayland and X11, because distros have to support both use cases.

Wayland has a long road ahead - job #1 is for the toolkits to fully support it (vs. the experimental status Wayland currently has). That's going to take at least a year. Qt5, if it's anything like Qt4 (or 3, or 2...) will require application porting, which also takes time. There's the issue of getting Drivers written for Wayland - again, something that will take time.

Might be faster than you think (1)

icebike (68054) | about 2 years ago | (#41736717)

When you consider how fast the switch to x.org from xfree86 took place in three Linux world, any clearly superior x-like implementation with fully compatible APIs and without unacceptable license encumbrances could be adopted in very short order. If the functionality requires every program and every library to be reworked, then it will probably never happen.

Not having ANY real Wayland knowledge, I can only hope it is not another change in Linux for change's sake.

Re:Might be faster than you think (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41736741)

Wayland is not compatible with X11. You can recompile a GTK program so it runs on Wayland, but existing X11 apps do not run on Wayland (they are working a crappy-ass Mac OS X like shim).

Re:Might be faster than you think (2, Insightful)

tibit (1762298) | about 2 years ago | (#41737095)

Existing X11 apps? Pray tell, what would those be? Does anyone care about xeyes anymore? I mean, I'd have thought that everything of note uses a framework/library of some sort that abstracts X11 away? Sure you need to port the framework, but the applications won't even know anything changed...

does it have TILES ??? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41736977)

Guess it's going to be another year of the windows desktop.
And laptop
Tablet and phone are coming i hear.
You have awoken a sleeping giant.

This is what happens when the "never was" starts talking about the "has been".
The linux desktop is a fragmented, broken, steaming pile of shit.
Wayland is just the latest load dumped on the heap.
-SB

Solution searching for a problem? (2, Insightful)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | about 2 years ago | (#41737043)

So.. X11 needs to be replaced with something shiny because of...? Seems the response most often stated is the code base is a mess. Why not just clean that up instead? And has others have noted here, remote usage is still important and no, VNC is not the same thing.

Re:Solution searching for a problem? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41737263)

I've read the Wayland code. It's a bunch of half-assed IPC which is trying to bootstrap some sort of system fast enough that they can start adding fancy features before they get bored with it all again. Someone basically wrote a prototype, which became the de facto message protocol for the compositor. You can tell that's exactly how it went down, because I've been writing async network IPC like that for 15 years, and it's exactly what you'd see from someone who couldn't give a flip about that aspect of the code.

Wayland is an excuse for people who got bored with X11. I say that because the parts which are directly analogous to X11 are poorly thought out. The whole goal, apparently, is to ignore all those boring parts of a display manager so they can get to the cooler, hipper parts as soon as possible. That doesn't bode well for long-term viability. Much like GNOME, they're chasing a fad---bringing the swipe animation level performance to the desktop---instead of thinking ahead. Which is a shame, because addressing the network messaging proboems is easy, especially when you're starting from scratch. We know _exactly_ what's wrong with X11, yet when the opportunity arises to replace it people go off into the weeds with their pet ideas, redefining the problem space so they have less grunt work to do.

Re:Solution searching for a problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41737325)

The perception is that X is bloated. This is ofcourse not true. So my suggestion is to just change the name. The advantage compared to Wayland that we would not break a decade of compatibility for no good reason.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...