| |||||||||||||
Yet another Wayland threadYet another Wayland threadPosted Mar 8, 2013 22:23 UTC (Fri) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)In reply to: Yet another Wayland thread by Serge Parent article: Canonical reveals plans to launch Mir display server (The H)
> But Wayland (protocol) is useless without compositor (Weston). You can't write real applications without using compositor extensions.
Erm... Wayland applications do NOT depend on the compositor. They might want to use advisory "window state" interfaces.
> KDE added Wayland support to kwin (that wasn't hard) and it's incompatible with Weston. That's one of the key Wayland problems: it encourages people to write multiple incompatible compositors, so we may end up with many different compositors, and no usable ones.
>Have you seen Wayland/Weston yet? Download RebeccaBlackOS, boot it in native Weston mode and try resizing some windows. Then reboot it into KDE+Xorg (it starts in compositing mode by default) and try resizing the very same windows. See any difference? Except KDE being faster?
> My question still stands. If Wayland (is it horse or RAV4?) is so good and has so many features, then where are those roads? Who is supposed to feel the benefits of Wayland?
(Log in to post comments)
Yet another Wayland thread Posted Mar 9, 2013 0:56 UTC (Sat) by Serge (guest, #84957) [Link]
> Erm... Wayland applications do NOT depend on the compositor.
You must be talking about some theoretical Wayland again. Real world applications have to use compositor-specific interfaces. For example how are you going to take a screenshot without depending on the compositor? How are you going to make a taskbar without using compositor extension?
> ROTFL. As if X Windows has exactly one compositor and window manager.
That's the point! Single X window system implementation has many WMs. But every single Wayland compositor implementation has just one WM. By design. Encouraged by Wayland. You do know that Wayland server is called "compositor", don't you?
> Yeah, I see tearing in X Windows.
That was an optical illusion. And it was under Wayland. :)
Really, get back to the real life, and at least check RebeccaBlackOS LiveCD to actually see that Wayland you're talking about.
> Indirectly - everyone. Directly - developers who can now write better applications with better graphics stack.
What developers? Developers of what? Developers using toolkits aren't supposed to see any changes. So no benefits for them. Developers of those toolkits just got more work to do, which obviously no good for them too, unless they like to work a lot. Then what developers are you talking about?
Yet another Wayland thread Posted Mar 9, 2013 4:38 UTC (Sat) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
>You must be talking about some theoretical Wayland again. Real world applications have to use compositor-specific interfaces.
No they don't. Basic shell protocols are already defined.
>For example how are you going to take a screenshot without depending on the compositor? How are you going to make a taskbar without using compositor extension?
> That's the point! Single X window system implementation has many WMs.
Whoops.
>Really, get back to the real life, and at least check RebeccaBlackOS LiveCD to actually see that Wayland you're talking about.
Yet another Wayland thread Posted Mar 9, 2013 19:04 UTC (Sat) by Serge (guest, #84957) [Link]
> I've read Wayland source code and I've actually tried it back when it could only display a primitive terminal window and rotating flowers.
Then why you're saying things like "Wayland opens a way to yet another class of devices" and constantly mix up Wayland and Weston as if you've never seen them and don't know anything about them?
>> You must be talking about some theoretical Wayland again. Real world applications have to use compositor-specific interfaces.
Have you read sources of those applications? Read again. :) You'll see that *real-world* applications use compositor-specific interfaces.
> And they are compatible, right? Say, does IceWM support that nice tray popup dbus protocol?
Yes, it does. Even more, they're supported without WM at all (notification-daemon).
> Whoops.
Are those tray popups supported in Wayland/Weston? No. Whoops. :)
You are arguing that Xorg is not too good, and Wayland is not too bad, while you should be arguing who it's good for. Nothing else matters if Wayland is good for noone.
Yet another Wayland thread Posted Mar 10, 2013 21:46 UTC (Sun) by renox (subscriber, #23785) [Link]
>No they don't. Basic shell protocols are already defined.
For Weston... But I wonder if the other compositor developers will like them!
Yet another Wayland thread Posted Mar 10, 2013 21:57 UTC (Sun) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Most of protocols are in the Wayland namespace. And it's not like X window managers developers get to vote on whether they like certain features of X protocol.
|
|||||||||||||