How will this affect LTSP and the future of thin clients with regards to Ubuntu?
They'll probably use Wayland with SPICE.
Do you have a link? All I can find is the circuit simulator results.
Ubuntu To Ditch X Server For Wayland
151–160 of 160 posts
Re: Ubuntu To Ditch X Server For Wayland
#152This is a huge shift if it happens. X has been synonymous with GUIs on unix for more than 20 years, and has accumulated all the attendant baggage (both good and bad). There are also some big consequences for the linux landscape. The first and obvious one is that if other distros don't imitate Ubuntu they will drift farther apart. People complain about Ubuntu going their own way now , image what it will be like if the…
If I never have to see an app with Motif widgets again, I would be a pretty happy guy.
Re: Ubuntu To Ditch X Server For Wayland
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
They'll probably use Wayland with SPICE.
Do you have a link? All I can find is the circuit simulator results.
I can see how that would be confusing. I'm talking about Red Hat SPICE, a replacement for VNC. http://www.spicespace.org/
Re: Ubuntu To Ditch X Server For Wayland
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's a calculated move on Apple's part. that seems unlikely in light of: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1872915
AFAIK (I don't have the source right now), Apple originally considered using X11 for the display server on OS X (in fact, early versions shipped with a version of xf86 that ran natively as it does on other *nixes), but after deciding on all the compositing and prettiness features that they wanted, they would have torn so much out of X11 that it wouldn't be remotely compatible anymore, so they wrote Quartz 2D. Later,…
This may be the explanation you are referring to:
Re: Ubuntu To Ditch X Server For Wayland
#155For me X has always symbolized old, hard to configure, clunky, and ugly. It wasn't meant to be part of Unix but it mixed in. I am glad to see it go at least from our desktops.
I found X quite easy to configure. Just set a few values in Xorg.conf and nowdays it even works without this sometimes. X11 as a protocol is old and mature like TCP or SMTP. Just like SMTP it has some problems, but Wayland throws away some core features to fix it. Hopefully, Wayland is flexible enough to get network transparency like X11 at some point.
>Just set a few values in Xorg.conf and nowdays it even works without this sometimes.
you make it sound like it was an advantage.
Re: Ubuntu To Ditch X Server For Wayland
#156This is great news for the Free Desktop. Ubuntu is really setting itself apart as its own OS rather than just another Linux distro. It might take about two years for this whole thing to sort of stabilize (Wayland + Unity), but when it does, Ubuntu will be kick-ass like it's never been before. I love it when people step outside the box.
Wayland was started by someone at Red Hat.
It would be great to see Fedora using it too, but I don't know if that will happen.
RHEL is not likely to use it, IMO, because it's not network-transparent. And f RHEL won't use it, Fedora probably won't use it.
That said, what's setting Ubuntu apart is the fact they're moving away from the traditional stack (X -> GNOME). This is significant enough IMO. Other distros might follow, and in that case, there will be two kinda of distros: those that use X, and those that use Wayland.
Re: Ubuntu To Ditch X Server For Wayland
#157Re: Ubuntu To Ditch X Server For Wayland
#158"Ditch X server" sounds like they're going to completely abandon X11. However, the Wayland FAQ[1] outlines ways of integrating X11 with Wayland, so I suppose users of, say, ddd are not going to suffer much. 1. https://groups.google.com/group/wayland-display-server/web/f...
From Mark's post:
"We’re confident we’ll be able to retain the ability to run X applications in a compatibility mode, so this is not a transition that needs to reset the world of desktop free software. Nor is it a transition everyone needs to make at the same time: for the same reason we’ll keep investing in the 2D experience on Ubuntu despite also believing that Unity, with all it’s GL dependencies, is the best interface for the desktop."
http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/551
I don't see this as much of a threat, as long as they keep the compatibility until they realize that all those graphics effects are about as useful as 3d movies.
Both the proprietary and free software worlds waste a lot of resources on that. Even minor GUI enhancements, such as the fact I can drag a window and it stays rendered instead of giving me a wire-frame TWM style, don't enhance useability much.
Re: Ubuntu To Ditch X Server For Wayland
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ubuntu is certainly not too big to ignore. I have never seen any source say Linux (let alone Ubuntu) has more than 5% marketshare. Does your company support 800x600? How about IE6?
If I was selling software to defense companies I'd support IE6. If I was selling software to primary school teachers I'd support 800x600. If I was selling technology to engineers (especially CUDA types building render farms of thousands of nodes) you can bet your life I'd support Ubuntu. I wouldn't want to give them any reasons at all not to use my stuff everywhere, in case I accidentally opened a niche my competitor…
25% of the users at my company's website (largest private insurer in my country) have an 800x600 resolution.
About 50% have 1024x768.
Of the remainder, a significant number have 1024x600 resolution.
It's a 3rd world country, so tech adoption is significantly slower, but you have to consider that not all sites have the same readership (in this case, we have people that still consider typewriters to be acceptable tech).
Re: Ubuntu To Ditch X Server For Wayland
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I loved reading the Unix haters handbook it gets many things wrong. It gets a lot right too, but the point is it takes some critical thinking (and good knowledge of Unix) to tell which is which. In that respect I found the chapter on X to be one of the weakest. They trot out the old "X named the client and server the wrong way around" chestnut for example...
Well, the naming is one thing; the architecture itself is worse. It's far more likely today for you to want to run applications on a server and be able to connect to and disconnect from them, like VNC or much better RDP, than it is for you to want all your applications running on the server to terminate when you disconnect your machine from the network.
Isn't there xmove for this kind of stuff?