So what's the deal with these two? I don't really know much about the whole ordeal. I know X has been around for ages, and Wayland is its replacement. Why hasn't Wayland seen more adoption, is it because it needs more drivers written for it? Applications have to be modified to communicate with it? And why is X being replaced, does it have some sort of design flaw, limitation, or it's just because it's 20 years old?
Pic unrelated.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtu.be
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Watch this: youtube.com
Wayland won't have more adoption until the Wayland compositors somehow agree on some common standards.
Basically Wayland protocol is a lot more minimal and limited and it won't do even close to what Xorg does.
Wayland can't screen record, hotkeys, changing screen tint (like flux) etc. So this becomes a Wayland compositors job (WM), but anybody can write that, so we all need to agree to certain APIs or standards.
This stage has not even started yet, since the last year was the first year we saw Wayland actually somewhat usable on a desktop environment (GNOME).
My prediction is that for the next 5 years we will slowly implement some standards and Wayland will become usable.
IGNORE ANTI-WAYLAND SHILLS
If something is not usable today, it doesn't mean it will never be. There is nothing wrong with using Xorg for the next 5 years and we will probably use XWayland forever.
I'm honestly more concerned about your spacing.
wayland = more secure and perfect looking video
X = better performingfor now, just works, more compatibile, backwards compatible, games, and more choice in DE's
I hope the GNOME/KDE faggots don't end up writing this standard. X has EWMH that is pretty well done, at least.
The X11 protocol is 30 years old, not 20. I haven't used Wayland, but X has a lot of problems with developing for it. There is a body of knowledge about using X that isn't very prominent as most people will prefer to use wrapper libraries (GTK) that make it easier to use. Online and in man pages, the documentation is very poor for the X library "Xlib", which is the older way of interacting with X. And, X can be confusing, because it isn't exclusively designed for a modern, 32-bit TrueColor display that we normally use. So, it seems verbose and odd in how it handles things like colors and images. You also generally need to use extensions to X that just about everyone has in order to get certain features out of it, like setting the display resolution from within a program. If you don't know how to do something in Xlib, and it's not documented how to do it, the way to find out is to read other people's programs that can do the same thing and see what they've done. New X programs should be written with xcb which seems nicer, but I have yet to use it.
back to cuckchan
Both X and Wayland are the classical example of UNIX retardation, that all neckbeards blindly followed while founding their Lunix shit.
UNIX was intended for mainframes in a time in which PCs weren't a thing, so of course X came as an addon to the kernel.
Meanwhile, Microsoft, knowing that a graphical user interface was going to be the main way of using a computer in the future (i.e. today and for the past 25 years), implemented its GUI right into the kernel, for increased security (as there is a tighter control over what happens) and speed (as it runs in ring 0).
You know they will though, and it'll be a gigantic fucking mess.
...
X only garuntees two colors. You can't assume more and it has a lot of facilities to make programs compatible with all kinds of displays, meanwhile something like windows can assume 8 bit colors.
Yes, because that's what everyone uses everyday, right? Because a PC is a mainframe, right? Retard.
What are you on about?
He formatted his sentences into perfectly formed paragraphs.
You forgot to doublespace your post.
Doublespacing your posts improves readability.
I'm gonna have to agree with this guy. It just seems perverse to me that everybody insists on using a 1970s operating system to power modern computers. The original Bell Labs Research UNIX was one of the major triumphs of system design, but its time has passed. Not because it solved its problems badly, but because we now have new problems. Modern Linux doesn't even have the quality of being consistent and elegant like UNIX was, because it comes with so many very un-Unixy solutions like systemd, dbus, Pulseaudio, etc.
X is a server - client system which allows you to easily do graphics operation over the network but it also works this way on a local computer. You have the x server in the system and each program is a client, so that's slows you down. I think wayland will change that.
Two of those systems are from the same faggot, and they're all related to the same organisations anyway. So is wayland... It shouldn't be a surprise that it end up being an awful replacement for X.
Wayland also use a wire protocol (using a Unix domain socket) for communication between the compositor (server) and the clients. The difference is that wayland requires the use of shared egl buffers to display content as it has no drawing primitives.
For the same reasons DirectFB hasn't seen more adoption, or Y-Windows hasn't seen more adoption, or Mir hasn't seen more adoption.
The only reason it's not fucking dead yet is Redhat pushing it as yet another anti-competitive stick to whack their competitors into subjugation with
Same people that maintain Xorg are developing Wayland.
X11R6 derivatives are the worst software you'll ever personally use. I remember having an "xlib programmer's Bible" as a kid and I'm surprised I wasn't struck down for blaspheming God. I got it as I was disgusted at early (for Linux) X11's tangled mess of window managers and broken toolkits and wanted to know what made it all tick, and it was such a mess. The protocol largely does things in lockstep, over sockets, over TCP, that would be completely not viable today were it not for layers of absolute shit that try to cache and guess at what the proper response should be and send it before it's actually sent (this is required even on a local system to avoid massive lag from all the context switches). It had no way of doing multiple issue, it had no idea what concurrency is, it wanted graphics and fonts sent to it as text in bizarre formats no one else ever used, it was awful. It is the depths of awful. You should read the code and review the protocol just so you know what rock bottom that still actually compiles and runs looks like.
I actually had a professor who'd worked on it at Xerox and was going to do a Masters project with him to make the X font server work more like how it works in Windows (rather than statically allocating 2MiB it would respond to system memory pressure by using a modified version of mmap that could discard live pages) and it was interesting hearing him talk shit about specific people on the team who had no idea what they were doing and he could point out all the mistakes and bad design that person was responsible for. It was really a bunch of research guys with minimal oversight trying out their own personal pet ideas about systems programming and dumping it all into a vat and stirring until something usable came out.
A good sign for wayland, isnt it
There's got to be something really awful about it if something as simple (today) as a display server seems to be getting nowhere after years.
If you are to take any lesson from this thread, it should be that people don't know shit about X11 and Wayland.
enlighten us faggot
Started by an Intel employee, in close collaboration with Red hat freedesktop.org...
Not really when you realize who's responsible for adding countless extensions to the protocol instead of releasing X12, based on contemporary needs.
This post is so retarded I don't know whether it's a good attempt at trolling or a bad attempt at anything else
Remember:
Never reply to tripfags
Filter all tripfags
Pfffft hahahahaha
It was going so well, then you said something gay, now we can't trust anything you say
Huh, probably irony but it's hard to disagree.
Is this a joke? Nobody does that. While making paragraphs is a common etiquette since forever.
Have you never been to any forum before 2005? Before reddit was even a thing.
RGB24 padded to dword alignment is not full color, but since you have the vocabulary of a prepubescent on xbox live I wouldn't expect you to know that anyway.
Onlyreddittriestomaketextreadable.infactspacingofanykindislitterallyreddit.
Are you saying we don't use 32bpp? At least explain WHY this is wrong; I know in other window managers, there are facilities for 8 and 16 bit colors, but every single X tutorial does this whole thing about how the only guaranteed colors are black and white. So, I know it's probably not necessary to make a point of it, but I can't find any X-Windows PRO's to eschew any decent write-ups about actually using the thing.
I can snap my fingers and everything magically works on Wayland because X11 was so shit. I mean I think it was shit. At least that's what I was told. Why people aren't using X11 in Wayland is a mystery to me because Wayland is so much better.
Pic totally related to my age
You do realize a headless server needs a GUI if you want a desktop, remote or not?
Of course, if you use gnome it'll work well, wl is made for it.
I think that what modern GNU/Linux does is better than consistently doing the wrong thing.
Bell Labs UNIX was a triumph in bad design.
X has been easy-ish on me always. It doesn't take much effort to just create .xinitrc and add a keyboard definition file in the X dir. The pit is bottomless with these display servers so I'll happily live with X until distro devs feel it's good as a default option.
Many years ago some autist, I think named Christian, completely sperged out over the definitions of server and client in the X protocol. It broke his brain and he swore to the gods that he would make something better. In the ages that followed his vision of an alternative windowing system was taken up by a horde of other, lesser beings, who extended and expanded upon his idea until now we have Wayland, a potentially functional system rivaling X in complexity but without any network aware code, because networking computers is an absurdity best left to pirates and criminal scum.
...
Use windows if you can't figure out how to fix this. There's no need to force a whole new poorly thought out display server for that.
This post makes my brain hurt tbh. It has nothing to do with UNIX being used for mainframes or whatever. UNIX was made to be modular, it was not made with old terninal support backed in, rather it was handled by its own separate components distinct from the kernel, that's why modern *nix uses Terminal Emulator device files (tty) to habdle console events
I fucking hate Linux and Freetards, but you guys are missing the point. UNIXs (and its clone Linux) were made to be modular. It's inconsistency is kind of the whole point. From an overall user experience perspective it's a design nightmare, but from a technical standpoint it's one of its core strengths. Linux is a people problem, people on both sides need to understand what Linux is and what Linux isn't.
Double space you dumb faggot, is this a post for ants?
Great, Redhat (GNOME) will write the standard themselves instead of planning it with a consortium of entities.
The result will be a hard Systemd dependency on all Wayland window managers and graphical applications.
Microkernels are modular. UNIX is a huge monolithic blob.
I have been waiting on this thing to ship for billions of years, maybe one day it will happen ;__;
Fucking commies, you're so stuck in your books that you can't see how your precious theories fail in real life. Tell me, why is it that there are no widely used microkernels?
No, modularity doesn't require this kind of inconsistency. Why would it?
find, dd, tar and cp all taking their command line options in different ways doesn't add to modularity. If they were developed by the same people following the same standards they would be more consistent but no less modular.
bash's [[ built-in and /usr/bin/[ are different in some obvious and some dangerously subtle ways. Is that because of modularity? Not really, traditional Unix didn't have [[ with its inconsistencies. It's a result of trying to create featureful software that's backward-compatible with Unix. It happened because of a move away from modularity that's impossible to complete, but with just traditional Unix or just the GNU attitude to software design the inconsistency wouldn't be there.
It might be that there's some sort of inconsistency I missed that's inevitably caused by modularity, but it isn't the sort of inconsistency we were talking about.
Minix is widely used. Every system with Intel ME 11 is running it.
The only popular microkernel is made by a jew and used to enslave humanity.
Fixed. Don't forget the microkernel used on all ARM proccessors for (((kikezone))).
L4 derivatives are used a lot, m8. In smartphones for example. en.wikipedia.org
What do Windows, OSX, Fuchsia, and the Linux Foundation's Zephyr all have in common? Give up? Their kernels are all hybrids. It's not common to have a pure micro or monolithic kernel.
L4 is bretty gool. I'm working on a toy microkernel that is basically an L4 ripoff.
Yeah, they are hybrids, not microkernels. My comment was about the "purity" of the theory vs something practical.
They are hybrid as in part micro part monlithic kernel.
They even mention it specifically. I'm sure it was easier for Linus to make Linux monolithic in the beginning. It doesn't mean microkernels are a bad idea because Linux isn't one.
How close in conception is wayland to rio from Plan 9?
In Plan 9, clients read files for inputs from the mouse and keyboard and write what needs to be in the window on the bitblit file and wctl to control the window itself. To me, Plan 9's model is much simpler and looks like the client does the rendering itself and then sends the result to the bitblt which looks like what wayland does.