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

The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

phoronix.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 714 posts

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#231

Post by kllrnohj »

jleahy wrote: post #194
adwn wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, whenever I tunneled X over a non-local SSH connection, it was slow as molasses. That's because almost all contemporary GUI applications render to a bitmap anyway. Those that actually use the outdated X vector graphics operations look like utter garbage compared to anything post-1995. Frankly, I'd rather my applications are at least somewhat aesthetically pleasing.

I routinely use modern X applications running on a remote (25 miles) machine, all day long as part of my job. It works flawlessly if you have a reasonable amount of bandwidth and reasonable latency. Sure, it doesn’t work over dial-up.

Of course it does, just like video-based remote desktop systems work great these days.

That's the point, X's claimed advantages here long since stopped existing, and nobody noticed because the "inferior" approach is perfectly fine with modern internet connectivity.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#232

Post by Flex247A »

beowulfey wrote: post #100
Flex247A wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What could be the reason behind this? Asking as a noob.

I personally don’t know, but most likely when you are not forced to think about memory, efficiency, etc... most people just don’t. So if you aren’t actively developing on those lightweight systems your code won’t run efficiently on them.

I guess that explains why Electron based apps don't feel as snappy as native ones.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#233

Post by sergeykish »

pjmlp wrote: post #34

Another proof that open source is only half of it, it doesn't matter if the code is available when there isn't anyone around to actually do something with it.

Open source gives you freedom to fix it, to share fix, to hire to fix.

I see it as another proof that people who depend on the infrastructure do not want to contribute. They would better whine and critique.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#234

Post by kllrnohj »

znpy wrote: post #38

I am not necessarily against Wayland or new things in general. But it bothers me when no clear upgrade path is defined ("drop your stuff" is not acceptable) and a half-hassed incomplete solution is proposed instead, and backwards compatibility is pretty much disregarded. For what concerns my personal computing, I'll stay on Xorg until XFCE supports Wayland. Then I'll update.

I think the problem with Wayland is it isn't half-assed. The insistence on being a generic protocol instead of a product fragments an already small dev community. And being a protocol so incredibly slows down velocity.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#235

Post by taeric »

ddevault wrote: post #183
verroq wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a benchmark where it blows X11 out of the water?

I am not aware of any up-to-date benchmarks which make a fair comparison (i.e. not just benchmarking GNOME), but I am intimately familiar with the technology and its performance characteristics.

Gnome is a fair comparison. Since it is the main comparison for many users, it is the most fair comparison.

Otherwise, this is starting the benchmark wars with meaningless comparisons at the outset. :(

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#236

Post by bmn__ »

adwn wrote: post #187
goatinaboat wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wayland is really slow. I don't know if it's the compositing or what but it's unusable on lighter hardware that X ran fine on. This is crazy when you think about it. I remember running an X server, Hummingbird I think it was called, on 386 and 486 machines connecting to Suns and it was fine , this was a perfectly acceptable way to work. Couple of xterms, an Emacs, xbiff for email, maybe some xeyes just for fun. Devel…

For what it's worth, whenever I tunneled X over a non-local SSH connection, it was slow as molasses. That's because almost all contemporary GUI applications render to a bitmap anyway. Those that actually use the outdated X vector graphics operations look like utter garbage compared to anything post-1995. Frankly, I'd rather my applications are at least somewhat aesthetically pleasing.

x11vnc is the answer. Performs okay at 10000km (quarter Earth circumference).

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#237

Post by SweetestRug »

swiley wrote: post #67

Sure X.org is abandonware but there are serious problems Wayland still hasn't solved that X has. 1) Wayland is really slow. I don't know if it's the compositing or what but it's unusable on lighter hardware that X ran fine on. 2) Widget toolkits handling window decoration is awful. Before the large number of toolkits just meant some controls were a little different but now basic behavior changes based on how programm…

> Wayland is really slow

I have to wonder if this is distribution dependent? On Manjaro my experience with Wayland has been fantastic. I cannot perceive any speed differences vs X.org; Wayland just flies.

It would be interesting to poll users and see just what factors are contributing to speed issues. GPU? CPU? Distribution? Wlroots vs Gnome? etc. Learning more about what users experience could be helpful in making Wayland better. Has anyone done this?

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#238

Post by kllrnohj »

mrob wrote: post #66
znpy wrote: post #38

I am not necessarily against Wayland or new things in general. But it bothers me when no clear upgrade path is defined ("drop your stuff" is not acceptable) and a half-hassed incomplete solution is proposed instead, and backwards compatibility is pretty much disregarded. For what concerns my personal computing, I'll stay on Xorg until XFCE supports Wayland. Then I'll update.

I'm against Wayland because it forces compositing on all windowed applications. I'll stay on Xorg as long as possible because I'm not willing to sacrifice latency for no tearing.

All your stuff is already composited, and if done well it doesn't add much latency at all. You're still paying it in X, just badly, and with none of the upsides (eg, no tearing). Even if you're trying to avoid a compositor, none of the UI toolkits are participating in that nonsense.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#239

Post by ddevault »

taeric wrote: post #235
ddevault wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not aware of any up-to-date benchmarks which make a fair comparison (i.e. not just benchmarking GNOME), but I am intimately familiar with the technology and its performance characteristics.

Gnome is a fair comparison. Since it is the main comparison for many users, it is the most fair comparison. Otherwise, this is starting the benchmark wars with meaningless comparisons at the outset. :(

It's not a fair comparison. You're benchmarking GNOME, not Wayland, and making generalizations about Wayland based on GNOME benchmarks is a false equivalency.

Is GNOME on Wayland worse than GNOME on X11? Perhaps. Is Wayland worse than X11, based on that answer? No.

Post reply on HN