User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

The way to Wayland: Preparing for life After X

The way to Wayland: Preparing for life After X

Posted Nov 18, 2010 11:20 UTC (Thu) by mti (subscriber, #5390)
Parent article: The way to Wayland: Preparing for life After X

I have some problem understanding exactly what is wrong with X. It has served me well for some 18 years and it seems to have been able to handle all kinds of new features and extensions.

Is there a big performance problem with having both an X server and a compositing manager?


(Log in to post comments)

The way to Wayland: Preparing for life After X

Posted Nov 18, 2010 13:49 UTC (Thu) by DiegoCG (guest, #9198) [Link]

Yes - in X.org the compositor lives in a different process and redrawing a window takes 3 context switches. In Wayland, the server is a compositor, so only 2 context switches are needed.

The way to Wayland: Preparing for life After X

Posted Nov 18, 2010 13:52 UTC (Thu) by rwmj (subscriber, #5474) [Link]

Oh well, saving a context switch! Now you put it like that, it almost seems worthwhile to completely install and run a *desktop* on all my servers.

The way to Wayland: Preparing for life After X

Posted Nov 19, 2010 4:28 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

WTF would you run a desktop on your servers?

If you want to keep running X then do so. There is nothing incompatible or wrong with using Wayland on your desktop and X apps on your server.

The way we do X now is kinda a throwback and nobody would do it this way if they had a chance to start over. It's like designing a operating system were your web browser is required to have the ability to fiddle with bits on your PCI buss. It's a network protocol and there is no good reason why your display software needs to drive your hardware.

Anyways who the hell runs any GUI anything from their servers? I have no less then 3 different computers of my own personal use that I have at a few places at over the internet and I don't use X on any of them.

For work I have to regularly deal with well over a thousand different Redhat boxes and I have yet to give a crap about any sort of remote GUI access... for any purpose at all.

I understand this is not unusual and I like X over SSH, but the way people are talking whenever this subject comes up they are acting like X11 over SSH is absolutely critical for Linux on the server and that having to use anything other then Xorg xserver sitting on their hardware to display it is completely unacceptable.

The way to Wayland: Preparing for life After X

Posted Nov 19, 2010 8:57 UTC (Fri) by rwmj (subscriber, #5474) [Link]

As I said above, once many apps lose network transparency we'll be left with a two-tier system, as on Mac OS X. So in fact I won't be able to keep on relying on X. Yes I also manage many servers, and I find it useful to run graphical programs remotely (view-viewer, eog, even firefox). Running an entire remote desktop is not an alternative.

The way to Wayland: Preparing for life After X

Posted Nov 19, 2010 14:15 UTC (Fri) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]

And I still don't see why do you think you'll be left with a system like MacOSX (where there is no per-app remoting solution) instead of a system like Windows (where there is).

The way to Wayland: Preparing for life After X

Posted Nov 19, 2010 15:06 UTC (Fri) by quotemstr (subscriber, #45331) [Link]

Anyways who the hell runs any GUI anything from their servers? I have no less then 3 different computers of my own personal use that I have at a few places at over the internet and I don't use X on any of them.
Your personal incredulity is not a rationale for cutting a feature that many people do use, as amply demonstrated by other comments on these tiresome threads. You have one style; others have theirs.

The way to Wayland: Preparing for life After X

Posted Nov 22, 2010 15:42 UTC (Mon) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]

>Now you put it like that, it almost seems worthwhile to completely install and run a *desktop* on all my servers.

This seems like such a complete non-sequitur. What are you talking about?

The way to Wayland: Preparing for life After X

Posted Nov 23, 2010 3:06 UTC (Tue) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]

everyone keeps talking about how VNC is the solution for network transparancy, but VNC requires that you have the entire desktop installed on the system you are accessing.

The way to Wayland: Preparing for life After X

Posted Nov 23, 2010 8:11 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

isn't that already the case with modern GNOME apps anyway? E.g. a lot of them depend on things like DBus session services - which isn't X11 aware (though it could be) AFAIK and thus it requires running a desktop on the remote system.

The way to Wayland: Preparing for life After X

Posted Nov 23, 2010 11:29 UTC (Tue) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]

>everyone keeps talking about how VNC is the solution for network transparancy,

Not really. It's been mentioned, but mostly people have been talking about RDP and SPICE because VNC is unlikely to ever be a good protocol for transparent remote access.

>but VNC requires that you have the entire desktop installed on the system you are accessing.

This is so silly. We're talking about software that doesn't yet exist picking a protocol for network transparency; why would anyone assume that it would directly copy implementation details of existing software that's designed for a different purpose?

The way to Wayland: Preparing for life After X

Posted Nov 18, 2010 14:46 UTC (Thu) by mti (subscriber, #5390) [Link]

I have not looked at the Composite protocol in detail but I assume it would be possible for the composite manager to do some buffering and handle updates for several clients at the same time with a single context switch.

Or one could let the compositing manager run in the same thread as the X server.

Btw, how expensive is a context switch compared to the actual drawing?


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds