The Wayland Situation: Facts About X vs. Wayland (Phoronix)

Posted Jun 8, 2013 23:45 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
In reply to: The Wayland Situation: Facts About X vs. Wayland (Phoronix) by stevenj
Parent article: The Wayland Situation: Facts About X vs. Wayland (Phoronix)

Yeah. Hence 'a random half'. The random half using toolkit A, which implemented multi-monitor support, versus toolkit B, which didn't bother. (I've seen just how slowly some toolkits pick up features. I have *no* confidence in them implementing even multi-monitor support properly, let alone the entire network transparency layer that the Wayland boosters appear to believe will be implemented in each one.)

(Log in to post comments)

The Wayland Situation: Facts About X vs. Wayland (Phoronix)

Posted Jun 9, 2013 5:03 UTC (Sun) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312) [Link]

The straightforward way to do this would be to implement a common midlayer graphics API one level higher than Wayland with support for rendering across multiple screens and network transparency. Then the toolkit developers could target that interface instead of requiring those things to be implemented on a toolkit by toolkit basis, which sounds crazy to me.

The Wayland Situation: Facts About X vs. Wayland (Phoronix)

Posted Jun 10, 2013 8:21 UTC (Mon) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]

Shall we call it X12?

The Wayland Situation: Facts About X vs. Wayland (Phoronix)

Posted Jun 10, 2013 17:45 UTC (Mon) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312) [Link]

Two major differences - X is a protocol, this would be a library interface. X requires IPC where it isn't necessary, this would not. The protocols used for network transparency should be independent of the API. X went horribly wrong by wiring the two together - if you use any other protocol, you get the worst of both worlds - a hard limitation to what the X protocol can support and a bunch of gratuitous IPCs to a slow and undignified protocol adapter in-between.

The Wayland Situation: Facts About X vs. Wayland (Phoronix)

Posted Jun 11, 2013 7:48 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]

Un-wire it.

And BTW take it to kronos, what ever gets to be a kronos standard is the one that will win.

I like the idea for compatibility
http://hack.org/mc/texts/gosling-wsd.pdf

Something very simple, even perhaps CoreX11 is too much (don't know), the remote case i would keep the protocol and download a conformant piece to every machine... its client, everybody downloads VNC etc if they wanted.

Most important of all take it kronos... let me see, about **ALL** the industry is there (fame and jobs).

The reality is that you are getting obsolete gentleman, the arguing is intense, but you seem to have lost the boat. Input(X) is bad ? ... what about streaminput ? ( i know NIH)... composition ? there is already a OpenWF http://www.khronos.org/openwf/ ( yes i know NIH) GL ? ... well they are at OpenGL4.3, the all edifice is being build around EGL i think (Linux DS is based on whatever fix for a problem seems the best by a few heads in a particular time, irrespective of others)

X, Wayland, MIR ??? ... i think this isn't going anywhere.

Perhaps Android DS can became full industry compliant (Kronos), and we can scrap all that s**t, no matter if many think that in point A or B their lady is much better.

If everybody coding for X (apps) could continue that would be awesome, but that is the only reason i see to give them the trouble to adopt another window system and protocol... **standard and lasting**... techs particularities are terceary importance, after all software can change all the time(to where is what might not be the wise thing, even if some tech argument is valid)

(it has do to with philosophy, complex systems above the "animal" don't evolve by competition, natural evolution crap, they destroy each other instead, like animals that eat each other... the natural paradigma of the human relation is cooperation not animal fagomania)

The Wayland Situation: Facts About X vs. Wayland (Phoronix)

Posted Jun 14, 2013 14:51 UTC (Fri) by daniels (subscriber, #16193) [Link]

Khronos's window system stuff (OpenWF, StreamInput, etc) has been around for many years now. And still no-one cares.

The Wayland Situation: Facts About X vs. Wayland (Phoronix)

Posted Jun 9, 2013 16:25 UTC (Sun) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]

You're reading it wrong...

Multi-display will work without any changes in applications right now. After all, applications won't care about who's going to be displaying their buffers with pixels and the compositor can send them to whatever displays it wants.

But if you are going to do something more complicated, like switchable graphics, then you're going to have to support it within the applications. It'd be nice to have it on the Mesa (OpenGL) level, though.