Developer comments
For starters: Wayland can not replace X. It needs X to be useful.. and that won't change for a long time.
feel free to package it, that doesn't need much brainstorming though.
18
votes
|
|
46
0
28
|
|
|
|
|
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
|
|
I think it's a good idea, just too early. It seems it would take too much work to implement this for jaunty or even 9.10, depending on the rate of development.
Maybe for 10.04 as an option, though?
|
|
neon
wrote on the 3 Nov 08 at 21:36
|
|
|
It's not stable yet, but it definitely is the future I believe. X.org just is sooo dated >.<
I think we should invest some devs in this though. And like the article said, implement it for the login, bootsplash, screensaver, and move up from there.
|
|
Emacs23
wrote on the 3 Nov 08 at 22:02
|
|
|
It's just impossible something can be worse than sucking X.org.
So, take my +1 ;)
|
|
|
Wayland is definitely interesting.
But it is way too easy to replace Xorg with it.
Xorg is a very mature code base.
Wayland is very fresh and doesn't even have device input, so its useless today.
Are there any graphics device drivers that work with Wayland?
How does Wayland handle multi-monitor? Multi-seat setups? Video offloading? Network transparency?
Plug-and-play? Auto-detection? Auto-configuration?
Will applications run on Wayland, or does everything has to be rewritten? Does everything needs to be ported?
|
|
|
|
Red Hat is already migrating +1
|
|
|
|
This is more of a potential future enhancement... can't be done today. Even the developer isn't targetting it as a full Xorg replacement today. Short term goals are to have it provide the X server that is used by GDM, and potentially, a system-wide screen saver. It isn't even up to those tasks yet, so proposing to replace Xorg with it isn't feasible yet.
|
|
|
Post the same idea again in 1,2 years
-1 as of 4:th november 2008
|
|
flammon
wrote on the 4 Nov 08 at 00:46
|
|
|
|
Just because the idea cannot be implemented today doesn't mean it's bad or that it should be closed. Some of the best ideas can't be done today such as using Btrfs as the default filesystem.
|
|
|
I also want to point this out from the article:
"Though before you think this will replace the current X.Org Server, Kristian explains "at this point wayland is just a prototype/playground for some ideas I've been toying with." Granted, it was Linus Torvalds who started the Linux kernel as a hobby and never expected it to support anything beyond early AT hard disks."
I think X is rather bloated, and will certainly be keeping my eye on Wayland, but I think it's still too early to make any assumptions on whether or not it is production-ready yet.
|
|
|
+1 Just to get the idea of replacing X on Canonical's radar.
AndrewLuecke: please curb your fury, you'll win no friends nor influence people by calling them idiots. Having read your impudent writhings, I am more likely to defend this idea in fact.
Also, this idea has no time frame. And it would work better in the Problem/Solution format proposed for the next version of Brainstorm. For example:
Problem: X sucks due to ...
Solution: Use Wayland (when mature);
Solution: Wait for X.org to be fixed;
Solution: ... ;
|
|
neon
wrote on the 4 Nov 08 at 03:09
|
|
|
@Andrew
It doesn't say NOW. It doesn't say for Jaunty. It doesn't specify when. Of course it's a little silly to ask for something so far in advance, but given the direction it wants to go, if we support it and develop it, it would be an amazing step in the right direction.
|
|
neon
wrote on the 4 Nov 08 at 04:16
|
|
|
@Andrew
It's bad phrasing. Everyone knows it cannot possibly be default at the current point in time (well...mostly everyone.), so...yeah.
Also, in the next version of brainstorm you can change your vote. So if you switch your mind on an issue later it won't be a problem. And obviously if it flunks, it wouldn't be implemented anyway.
|
|
|
> X.org just is sooo dated >.<
The X *protocol* is old; the implementation has been kept up-to-date in order for it to work with modern hardware drivers and software requirements.
Is there anything wrong with the current implementation of the protocol? How does it show that xorg is dated and why is that bad?
> It's just impossible something can be worse than sucking X.org.
How does xorg suck?
I'm not trying to defend xorg. I just want to know what you guys think is wrong with.
|
|
|
> What makes you be able to say now Wayland WILL be better Liam?
No, I don't have any idea whether Wayland will ever be able to replace X. But it is something worth stashing away to look at later, and possibly put some development time into (this is up to Canonical of course).
> So why vote +1?
To ensure Canonical devs know the project exists, and that people in the community are interested; even if that interest was expressed in a clumsy fashion.
Closing the idea was the right decision though. Oh, and Slashdot isn't all ignorance: http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1017147&cid=25620143 :)
> Is there anything wrong with the current implementation of the protocol? How does it show that xorg is dated and why is that bad?
I believe many get their opinions on X11 from the Linux Hater's Blog: http://linuxhaters.blogspot.com/2008/06/nitty-gritty-shit-on-open-source.html
Personally, I keep an open mind on the subject. Am always heartened to see work being done though.
|
|
|
Exciting news!
Wayland in it's current state of development might actually help New Hardware adoption...by frying all the old CRTs still lying around the place.
Don't forget the Protective eye-wear, when you do;
# initwayland
:-D
|
|
|
Xorg is a very mature code base.
Wayland is very fresh and doesn't even have device input, so its useless today.
-1000000000000000000000000000000000 it is completly crazy to do this, i will never be agree!!!!!!!!!! NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
flammon
wrote on the 5 Nov 08 at 16:36
|
|
|
|
Some people here don't have a concept of time. Obviously this idea won't be in Ubuntu for a while and I think that we're all intelligent enough to understand why. But this does not make it a bad idea just like Linux 0.01 was not a bad idea. We're voting on ideas that seem to be going in the right direction as well and not only the ideas that seem good today. If you can't see the potential in something then you'll always be trailing.
|
|
snadrus
wrote on the 26 Mar 10 at 19:02
|
|
|
Are there any graphics device drivers that work with Wayland?
- Currently NVidia, Intel, and ATI as they all do KMS & other advanced features of X that Wayland uses.
How does Wayland handle multi-monitor? Multi-seat setups?
- It can handle multiple instances of itself or X embedded
Video offloading?
- The same video drivers as Today are used
Network transparency?
- Plugins allow these to be built for it
Plug-and-play? Auto-detection? Auto-configuration?
- Incomplete
Will applications run on Wayland, or does everything has to be rewritten? Does everything needs to be ported?
- To avoid the Xserver plugin penalty, apps' toolkits need to use Wayland instead of X (QT, GTK, FLTK, SDL, etc). Most of this is complete for QT & GTK.
- The minimal set of display commands are supported (GEM buffers) otherwise X11 commands need to be removed/changed.
|
|
cbh2000
wrote on the 28 May 10 at 18:17
|
|
|
The Wayland server makes use of rendering techniques that already exist, such as DRM, KMS and GEM; which are used by X.org as well. It is not compatible with X.org, so any applications that directly communicate with it (or use a toolkit which does) will not work. Porting shouldn't be very hard, since most applications these days use a toolkit such as GTK or Qt which could switch over to Wayland without too much trouble for developers.
I think that a replacement for X is overdue and I hope that Wayland becomes more than just a pet project. Maybe someday soon, I will stop blabbering and join the project.
I have always liked Linux based operating systems, but X has always been my pet peeve.
|
Post your comment
|
