Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The death watch for the X Window System has probably started

utcc.utoronto.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 518 posts

Re: The death watch for the X Window System has probably started

#251

Post by daenney »

atemerev wrote: post #31
daenney wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GNOME, which is what powers the RedHat desktop, supports nvidia on Wayland just fine, and KDE got nvidia/EGLStreams support since KWin 5.16. So at least 2 major DEs do, though quite a few others don't, and have taken a principled stand not to (Sway for example won't). When it comes to RedHat though, they're all-in on GNOME anyway so keeping X around for nvidia users isn't really a concern for them when their desktop…

No, just checked it with the latest Fedora 30, it defaults to X when it detects an Nvidia card.

Just b/c it defaults to X does not mean it doesn't work or isn't supported on Wayland.

Re: The death watch for the X Window System has probably started

#252

Post by imtringued »

pmlnr wrote: post #225
chrisseaton wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> NVIDIA doesn't support GBM If Nvidia don't support it, how much of a useful standard can it really be?

a standard supported by nothing, that reminds me of xhtml2...

It is very condescending to label Intel, AMD and pretty much every other GPU vendor other than Nvidia as nothing.

Re: The death watch for the X Window System has probably started

#253

Post by Shelnutt2 »

dTal wrote: post #240
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The flag is there for you to override if you think you know better. We don't answer questions or provide support for any use-case with the proprietary driver.

Refusing to run if a particular kernel module is loaded (even if you don't touch it at all) is overstepping. You should at least provide an override flag.

There is an override flag, its linked in the code snippet.

Use "--unsupported-gpu" or "--my-next-gpu-wont-be-nvidia" to bypass the check and allow sway to launch.

Re: The death watch for the X Window System has probably started

#254

Post by chrisseaton »

imtringued wrote: post #252
pmlnr wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a standard supported by nothing, that reminds me of xhtml2...

It is very condescending to label Intel, AMD and pretty much every other GPU vendor other than Nvidia as nothing.

If Nvidia don't support it, then it's just a standard, not the standard.

Re: The death watch for the X Window System has probably started

#255

Post by _delirium »

kaendfinger wrote: post #21
beowulfey wrote: post #16

Is there any plan by Wayland to incorporate ssh forwarding? Last I heard it wasn't in the cards, and I think that feature is useful enough; it's probably the only feature I really would miss.

Waypipe does this in a really similar way to x forwarding. https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mstoeckl/waypipe/

This is pretty interesting! I'm worried it's going to be a long path to getting things up and working again like they do with X today though. For example, my typical remote-X use-case is connecting to a Linux server from my macOS laptop. I haven't been following Wayland and/or waypipe enough to know how feasible that kind of setup would be with them. Are they potentially cross-platform enough that one end could run on macOS?

Re: The death watch for the X Window System has probably started

#256

Post by Keyframe »

imtringued wrote: post #252
pmlnr wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a standard supported by nothing, that reminds me of xhtml2...

It is very condescending to label Intel, AMD and pretty much every other GPU vendor other than Nvidia as nothing.

Discrete GPU market share is 80%+ Nvidia, last time I checked.

Re: The death watch for the X Window System has probably started

#257

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

calcifer wrote: post #244
ddevault wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The problem is that wlroots is one of several libraries with this goal. The only successful one, to be clear. You would be unwise to base your compositor on any of the others (libweston, wlc, swc, etc). wlroots is suitable for basically any use-case.

> wlroots is suitable for basically any use-case Except the single largest GPU vendor, yes.

A downstream compositor which wishes to implement Nvidia support could do so and integrate it with wlroots.

However, there are more reasons than political not to "support" Nvidia. Their alternative has genuine technical problems that would render large parts of wlroots broken.

Re: The death watch for the X Window System has probably started

#258

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

csande17 wrote: post #216
makomk wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GBM is a very useful standard if you only ever want to request buffers from drivers that use the Linux kernel's GPU buffer management code and modesetting code. (Preferably only Mesa-based drivers too.) NVidia doesn't use this and probably can't for licensing and other reasons. If you want to talk to any graphics driver that isn't correctly and intimately entwined with the right parts of the Linux kernel, GBM is basi…

I'm not super familiar with the details of this stuff -- does this mean that there's basically no hope of any wlroots-based window manager ever working on non-Linux operating systems like BSD?

wlroots already supports FreeBSD and OpenBSD support is in the works.

Re: The death watch for the X Window System has probably started

#259

Post by _emacsomancer_ »

rrss wrote: post #127
xyzzyz wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grepped wlroots for "nvidia" and got no hits.

https://github.com/swaywm/sway/blob/9670ccee683ab985e89eb043...

I applied the `--my-next-gpu-wont-be-nvidia` flag to my hardware and replaced my Nvidia cards with AMD ones, and it is a quality of life improvement.

Re: The death watch for the X Window System has probably started

#260

Post by majewsky »

bitwize wrote: post #217
mort96 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds weird to me to claim the Wayland ecosystem is less modular than the X ecosystem. With X, you're depending on one huge monolithic display server implementation; with Wayland, you can switch display server at will and they all conform to a common protocol. I get the concern that most of the functionality which used to be in separate programs is now bundled with the Wayland compositor, and I used to share it,…

With X, you can switch your display server as well (and there were proprietary X server offerings available as late as the late 90s/early 2000s). It's just that Xorg, being internally more modular than XFree86, sapped the value add of redoing the entire X server and effectively "won". In fact, with X you can switch out your display server and keep your window manager. Can't do that with Wayland -- by design. Now who'…

> In fact, with X you can switch out your display server and keep your window manager.

No, that's not a fact, that's a theory. In practice, there is only one display server that supports modern devices, Xorg. No modularity is lost by replacing a single display server implementation by a single libwayland implementation.

Post reply on HN