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

281–290 of 714 posts

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#281

Post by 1_player »

ravenstine wrote: post #180

If Wayland is the future, then the future was 12 years ago. Since it hasn't really caught on or solved the same problems that X.Org accomplished a long time ago, it seems kind of pointless to continue pursuing it at this point. In my opinion, the best thing about X.Org is that it's no longer changing. I remember installing updates for X.Org all the time and booting to a black screen on multiple occasions.

The issue is not Wayland or "something else".

The issue is trying to implement a radical change in the userspace Linux ecosystem. It's not possible without a ton of effort, so it takes an incredible amount of time, sweat and tears. That's the reason it takes 12 years and counting.

The utopian philosophy of "Linux is about choice" has doomed any idea of a Linux desktop.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#282

Post by mort96 »

cycloptic wrote: post #275
mort96 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen libdecoration, and yeah, that seems like their intended solution to this. It doesn't seem like a terrible solution, but last time I looked at it at least, libdecoration was a long way off being production ready, and GNOME with Wayland is shipping _right now_ and must be supported.

You can use a library like that or you can draw your own decorations. There unfortunately is no other option. I don't see it as being likely that GNOME will support SSD any time soon, it just isn't designed for that.

I know, and that's kind of what I'm complaining about. There's no reason it couldn't support SSDs.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#283

Post by ywei3410 »

mort96 wrote: post #260
ywei3410 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I don't believe that's correct. The move, minimize, full-screen and resize seems to be part of the xdg_shell protocol (which has no extra methods for decorations and is only for window roles etc...) under the configure event [1]. I suspect that's how the tiling window managers like sway do it without extra server-side decorations.

Possibly this is a subtle distinction, but I do think it matters.

[1] https://github.com/wayland-project/wayland-protocols/blob/ma...

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#284

Post by marcosdumay »

jhasse wrote: post #190
marcosdumay wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, there are plugins somewhere that support all kinds of basic functionality. I can already see how nice will be to keep a system like this up to date. Do the developers expect to incorporate those plugins at the main code at some time?

Wayland isn't a code base but a protocol.

Ok, so does the standard body plan on incorporating those extensions into the main standard at some point?

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#285

Post by ddevault »

taeric wrote: post #261
ddevault wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm saying that we get your point. But you seem to be missing ours. Nobody cares about benchmarks that a) don't exist or b) are not indicative of what folks will experience.

Obviously? The disconnect is that you seem to think that we can draw conclusions from nonexistent benchmarks.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#286

Post by 1_player »

2ion wrote: post #137
Avamander wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love how people say that an unified method of taking screenshots, screen streaming, screen recording and performance in general is legacy baggage.

The big mistake with W was leaving so much of function specification to the implementor. W was a spec, but totally incomplete for what was needed to build a usable power user desktop. The Linux DE landscape was already fractured to the degree of inefficiency for such a small user base, and with W this fracture actually deepened due to the Great Unsharing of implementation details. Nothing global. Everything local, fr…

With W I assume you mean Wayland? You comment is confusing because the W Window System [1] is in fact the predecessor of X11 and that's what I thought you were referring to.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_Window_System

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#287

Post by pjmlp »

sergeykish wrote: post #233
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.

A freedom that a large majority ignores, because they only see it as free beer.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#288

Post by cycloptic »

mort96 wrote: post #282
cycloptic wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can use a library like that or you can draw your own decorations. There unfortunately is no other option. I don't see it as being likely that GNOME will support SSD any time soon, it just isn't designed for that.

I know, and that's kind of what I'm complaining about. There's no reason it couldn't support SSDs.

I was trying to be clear here: There is a reason and it's that it's not really possible architecturally for them to support SSDs in Wayland; doing so would require a redesign of significant parts of the compositor's code. I'm sorry if that was misunderstood. If you're trying to say they should have anticipated this and made a different architectural decision years ago, maybe that's true, but that also offers no practical solution to the applications that need to support it right now.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#289

Post by ddevault »

marcosdumay wrote: post #284
jhasse wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wayland isn't a code base but a protocol.

Ok, so does the standard body plan on incorporating those extensions into the main standard at some point?

That's not really how Wayland extensions work. If I can reword your question as "are these protocols legitimate and standardized" the answer is "yes".

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#290

Post by linuxdaemon »

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…

I am forced to use ms teams for work. Every time I attempted to share my desktop, teams would crash. I thought it was just because teams sucks. As it turns out, it seems to be that running under wayland was actually causing it. Everything works fine under x.org. After I was running with x.org for a couple days, I realized there are quite a few little oddities that I just lived with and didn't realize it was because wayland was actually messing things up.
Post reply on HN