More important to me than super-smooth graphics.

Posted Nov 8, 2010 5:17 UTC (Mon) by gmatht (guest, #58961)
Parent article: Shuttleworth: Unity on Wayland

For me network transparency is more important that "supersmooth" graphics. However there are a number of ways limitations of X that I do care about. These relate to the robustness of X.
1) Would the simplicity of Wayland mean that it would be less likely to crash than an X-server?
2) Would it be possible to reset, for example, the graphics card without killing all Wayland clients (applications). Roughly, I mean could we do the equivalent of Ctrl-Alt-Backspace without losing all our open applications?
3) Would motion of the the mouse pointer remain smooth, even when a couple of background tasks are performing heavy IO?
4) Would Wayland improve resource management? For example,
4a) a poorly written application can cause the X-server to allocate large amounts of memory. Would Wayland force or encourage that application to allocate that memory itself (making the culprit clear in top and to the OOM killer)?

More important to me than super-smooth graphics.

Posted Nov 17, 2010 17:10 UTC (Wed) by renox (guest, #23785) [Link]

> 1) Would the simplicity of Wayland mean that it would be less likely to crash than an X-server?

Wayland itself, yes, as it does less than an X-server, but if you do the network transparency in the toolkitS for example, as there can be several toolkit the duplication of code increase the total probability of failure.

For the point 2: perhaps, but AFAIK the issue with restarting X is that currently clients don't reopen a connection with X in case of X's failure, so in theory this isn't related, in practice it could be if Wayland clients are written with this possibility in mind..