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

251–260 of 714 posts

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#251

Post by taeric »

ddevault wrote: post #239
taeric wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I get your point. But until those benchmarks at least correlate with behavior users see, they are not worth much.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#252

Post by asveikau »

DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #241
peterangular wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah - I have no clue why you're being downvoted. I have the exact same professional experience where Wayland is slow out-of-box vs X. I also share the experience of getting X to work on ancient hardware without much difficulty. Let's be real here - if you're needing something to "just work" you're going to install X. Sorry Wayland, you're just not there yet.

> Yeah - I have no clue why you're being downvoted. I didn't downvote but it's because parents comment are anecdotal and not providing further data one might be able to engage/confirm/refute ... and therefore I learned nothing from reading it. I'm also running a dual setup of i3/sway and the only reason why I still keep i3 around is screen-sharing in jitsi and similar. and my experience is that wayland has a lower us…

Well, the anecdotes are kind of real, and vast in numbers. I suspect many readers here never used X on a 90s PC or workstation, so they could be forgiven for not realizing it was up to the task on hardware that is now pitiful.

Another example I like is the Nokia N900, which ran X on a phone no less, phone hardware from 2009, and it was pretty good there.

Part of the problem is surely software bloat over time on higher parts of the stack, rather than X itself. You couldn't get the 486 in the comment above to run recent gnome or a recent browser. But you could run software of the era well.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#253

Post by mrob »

kllrnohj wrote: post #238
mrob wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's no reason to add another layer of avoidable compositing.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#254

Post by hedora »

dralley wrote: post #161
mrob wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wrong: https://www.gamingonlinux.com/articles/gnomes-mutter-gets-fu... I get it, all these features that used to just be supported by the one Xorg server now need to be supported by individual compositors - but still, it is simply misinformation that "Wayland" is broken because Mutter / Kwin / Sway are incomplete.

If it isn’t broken, then give an example of a compositor that isn’t broken.

A protocol with zero practical implementations is, in practice, broken.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#255

Post by cycloptic »

mort96 wrote: post #216
solarkraft wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wayland is really slow. I think you don't mean that the Wayland protocol forces slowness but that the compositor you used was slow. The one I use is fast. > And if you don't like the window decorations (say, they take up too much screen space) your choices are suck it up, or if you're lucky and willing to spend a bunch of time reconfigure every different toolkit your apps use. No, there are protocols to negotiate w…

> No, there are protocols to negotiate whether an app has server side decoration or not and the compositor has the last say. The compositor can implement that protocol and just respond with "this compositor doesn't support SSDs". GNOME does this, so all toolkits must use CSDs if they wanna work on the most popular Wayland compositor. Incidentally, that's hell for all the simple libraries out there which just exist to…

GLFW and SDL are looking at using libdecoration to draw CSDs. Yes it's an additional dependency but most applications won't need to worry about it unless they need it.

The way GNOME is built it's not really possible architecturally for them to support SSDs in Wayland. Maybe that will change if they ever get around to redesigning mutter and gnome-shell, but I wouldn't wait for it.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#256

Post by ywei3410 »

mort96 wrote: post #216
solarkraft wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wayland is really slow. I think you don't mean that the Wayland protocol forces slowness but that the compositor you used was slow. The one I use is fast. > And if you don't like the window decorations (say, they take up too much screen space) your choices are suck it up, or if you're lucky and willing to spend a bunch of time reconfigure every different toolkit your apps use. No, there are protocols to negotiate w…

> No, there are protocols to negotiate whether an app has server side decoration or not and the compositor has the last say. The compositor can implement that protocol and just respond with "this compositor doesn't support SSDs". GNOME does this, so all toolkits must use CSDs if they wanna work on the most popular Wayland compositor. Incidentally, that's hell for all the simple libraries out there which just exist to…

> GLFW, GLEW, SDL, etc. all have to implement CSDs now if they wanna work with Wayland.

I honestly don't understand what you're talking about here? If you want to get a window on the screen with OpenGL or Vulkan you don't implement anything special for Wayland.

In fact with Vulkan+Wayland, it's fairly easy to do it without any third-party dependencies, with OpenGL you'll probably need EGL which is a Khronos dependency. Here's some slightly outdated example code [1].

[1] https://gist.github.com/Miouyouyou/ca15af1c7f2696f66b0e01305...

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#257

Post by ddevault »

taeric wrote: post #251
ddevault wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I get your point. But until those benchmarks at least correlate with behavior users see, they are not worth much.

I don't know what you're trying to say, outside of some vauge attempt to avoid admitting a mistake.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#258

Post by jcelerier »

ywei3410 wrote: post #246
jcelerier wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> screenshots don't work – they do. I use them all the time. they don't work on wayland, they work on specific compositors that implement an extension.

While technically correct, this misses the point. Very few features are part of the core Wayland protocol; off the top of my bind, there's the input methods, and a few ways to describe shared memory with the compositor and some callbacks to handle device registration. That's it. For example, top level windows and popups themselves are an extension in Wayland ( xdg_shell protocol rather than the defunct wl_shell ), an…

> Very few features are part of the core Wayland protocol;

but that is the main critique. Most of the things not being part of core means that there is a lot more fragmentation of the linux desktop than there was with X, which is unilaterally a bad thing.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#259

Post by ATsch »

p_l wrote: post #90
rjzzleep wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep trying to use Wayland, but it never fully works. Everyone keeps saying how well the highdpi stuff works, but then it really only works for a subset of things. For the rest it's actually worse than Xorg. Multiscreen is Xorg is kinda mushy so I thought maybe Wayland fixes it, but no it doesn't. Wayland is now 12 years old and everything is still half-baked. It quotes an intel developer saying they don't want to…

Having used Intel open source drivers for 12 years, I've never lost the opinion I gained back with X3100 gpu that Intel is the darling because technically open sourcing the driver papered over the many, many faults of their code. Whenever I had a chance to run on nvidia binary drivers, the only things I occasionally missed were some new features, or having to wait a bit longer to update the kernel. Stability was bett…

> And X.Org's driver architecture could be replaced completely (in fact, it could be made to run on the same stack as Wayland)

Many distros do this already. Both for graphics drivers (xf86-video-modesetting) and input drivers (xorg-input-libinput)

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#260

Post by mort96 »

ywei3410 wrote: post #256
mort96 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, there are protocols to negotiate whether an app has server side decoration or not and the compositor has the last say. The compositor can implement that protocol and just respond with "this compositor doesn't support SSDs". GNOME does this, so all toolkits must use CSDs if they wanna work on the most popular Wayland compositor. Incidentally, that's hell for all the simple libraries out there which just exist to…

> GLFW, GLEW, SDL, etc. all have to implement CSDs now if they wanna work with Wayland. I honestly don't understand what you're talking about here? If you want to get a window on the screen with OpenGL or Vulkan you don't implement anything special for Wayland. In fact with Vulkan+Wayland, it's fairly easy to do it without any third-party dependencies, with OpenGL you'll probably need EGL which is a Khronos dependenc…

If you just create a Wayland window, GNOME will draw _only_ that window, with no decorations. The window can't be moved, minimized, resized, etc. because there's no decorations. The window's content shows up, but that's it.
Post reply on HN