The X.Org Server Is Abandonware? • Hacker News Board

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#321

Post by sergeykish » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 6:46 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #314

sergeykish wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wlroots excellent performance => bottleneck is not Wayland. Gnome will catch up some day.

Gnome hasn't provided a good desktop experience since 2011. By the time they figure out how to stop sucking insofar as Wayland performance they will surely have discerned new ways to err. There are other environments that have worked well for a decade and will work well for the next decade.

Test was about GNOME, I do not understand what they were expecting. It should be about same on most workloads.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#322

Post by taeric » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 6:46 PM UTC

ddevault wrote: post #309

taeric wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are asking us to literally draw conclusions from hypothetical benchmarks where the opposite results will exist. I am sympathetic to the idea that things needed to start over. I'm annoyed with the lack of honesty and self critical approach. As framed by you, Wayland is above criticism. Which immediately raises my suspicions.

I have not said that Wayland is above criticism. I have said that the criticism which has been raised thus far is largely invalid, and that the benchmark you pointed to is flawed. If you insist on using flawed benchmarks as evidence for the inferiority of a technology simply because no less-flawed benchmark exists to provide a counterpoint, you are wrong .

How is it wrong? You felt it was just unfair, earlier. :)

To an extent, I actually agree. I just don't care, though. Pointing at comparisons that are not real world user cases is... Annoying. And feels ridiculously bad faith in argument.

Worse so, when it has been a prominent argument in this space for a long time.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#323

Post by cbm-vic-20 » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 6:48 PM UTC

dekhn wrote: post #245

X.org is one of my longest-used pieces of software. I've used it for 25 years (at the time it was called XFree86 and you had to calculate your own modelines to get hi res), and it has worked incredibly well for me. I've written software some 20 years ago that still runs just fine (some xscreensavers) and I still use it today. Kind of a shame.

Oh, man. "It this a Sony Trinitron 19in CRT running at 65Hz, or is this a Gateway 17in monitor running at 60Hz? Why can I only see the left half of my desktop on the right side of the screen?", etc.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#324

Post by marcosdumay » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 6:49 PM UTC

ddevault wrote: post #289

marcosdumay wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Are they optional¹ and are there alternatives to them?

If the answer is yes, then there is a problem.

1 - I imagine "optional" can be the wrong word, maybe the correct is "universally adopted".

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#325

Post by grandinj » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 6:50 PM UTC

sergeykish wrote: post #280

grandinj wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that, in the name of progress, various things are broken in the x11 world too on fedora, as a direct consequence of the wayland updates. Which is unfortunate

Fedora switched to Wayland, that is unfortunate for X.Org users but basically it means someone stopped fixing issues. You either fix them yourself and contribute back if possible. Or switch to distribution where someone still fixes these issues. I've investigated X.Org caused bug just for two days and since then totally support Wayland development. What we have today is not healthy.

We used to have a well-functioning display server that was robust and battle-tested.

The wayland people replaced that with a half-baked solution because they insisted on boiling the ocean - replacing the entire thing in one go, instead of working piecemeal (which the X protocol was explicitly designed to allow).

Which is a great pity, because now the day of the Linux Desktop is even further off.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#326

Post by taeric » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 6:51 PM UTC

sergeykish wrote: post #319

taeric wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are appealing arguments. But our industry is flooded with appealing arguments losing to pragmatic compromises.

Our industry is flooded with critics who do not contribute.

Most of the pragmatic solutions were built by contributing to existing things, not starting over.

Think risc v cisc. It isn't that there are not points to be gained from the alternatives. It is that leaving the past behind is not necessarily the best way to get progress. And even when enough time passes that the alternative gains ground, it often looks more like what it was replacing than less.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#327

Post by adwn » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 6:53 PM UTC

goatinaboat wrote: post #244

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.

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. That is entirely subjective no? Personally I think Motif is one of the pinnacles of GUI design.

Aesthetics is always subjective, but it's safe to say that most people today would find Motif to be rather ugly.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#328

Post by nullc » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 6:56 PM UTC

corty wrote: post #79

QuesnayJr wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way is Wayland's architecture broken? Is there a critique floating around I could look at?

The design overview slides are their own critique: Wayland does almost nothing besides render buffer handling. Input? Applications job. Window decorations? Compositors job. Application talking to the Compositor? Somebody elses job. Clipboard? Maybe compositor or toolkit. Screenshots and remoting? Somebody elses job, but only after Wayland has bored the appropriate holes in its security model. This all leads to a ton…

> But the buffer handling is great,

... so long as you don't care about latency and don't mind a $3000 top of the line 64 core desktop feeling slightly slower than a machine from 20 years ago.

:(

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#329

Post by ddevault » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 6:57 PM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #324

ddevault wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Are they optional¹ and are there alternatives to them? If the answer is yes, then there is a problem. 1 - I imagine "optional" can be the wrong word, maybe the correct is "universally adopted".

Yes, they're optional, and no, they're not universally adopted, but this doesn't damn Wayland. An example of where the screenshot protocol isn't supported (and this is fine) is where Wayland is used as the driver for the dashboard display in a vehicle (which is one of the major places where Wayland adoption is strong in industry). Wayland is designed to accomodate a broader variety of use-cases than X11: it's not just for desktop systems. That's why these protocols are optional and separate from the core Wayland protocol: it gives us greater flexibility, by design.

Among desktop systems, GNOME is really the only one who maintains a concrete objection to these protocols. KDE supports most of the wlroots-sponsored protocols in theory, and a handful in practice - patches welcome for the rest. The remainder of the major Wayland implementations for desktops, and many for mobile, support most or all of the necessary protocols.

I am really getting tired of explaining this stuff, over and over and over again. Can we please just stop spreading FUD for technologies that we don't understand? I'm just so sick of it.

Why do people do this? What can be done to stop it? Obviously nothing I've done so far has been working. This feels like talking to conservatives about climate change.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#330

Post by Athas » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 6:59 PM UTC

formerly_proven wrote: post #248

Athas wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would it know what scaling factor you want?

The standard has been ~100 DPI, so a 200 DPI display should by default get 200 % scaling with no extra configuration needed.

I'd rather just have the configuration file be simple and well documented and let me make the decision. My monitor running at maximum resolution is about 163 DPI, so an automated system could guess both ways. 200% scaling works well for me, and it's a single line of configuration, done once, and I don't have to worry about heuristics changing behind my back.