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

411–420 of 714 posts

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#411

Post by noobermin »

nsajko wrote: post #132

If Wayland is the future, the future is grim. People often complain that Wayland is taking a long time to catch up to X11, but that actually stems from a deeper issue: Wayland has a horrible design, for an X11 replacement, a design that leads to massive fragmentation issues across the graphical part of the Linux ecosystem. Implementing a Wayland compositor requires much more effort than implementing an X11 window man…

I've added this comment to my favorites; a very succinct description of the problems with Wayland. At this point I wonder if starting from scratch was the right call vs. spending the 12 intervening years trying to (yes) dig into X11 and fix existing issues.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#412

Post by na85 »

whimsicalism wrote: post #391
grep_name wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered using a tiling window manager? I've been using bspwm for years and it just uses X. I don't really miss anything about floating window managers, and since switching everything feels more stable and portable

I'm using a tiling window manager on Mac

Which one?

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#413

Post by ddevault »

dang wrote: post #410
ddevault wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we've been pleading with you for years already not to do it. The same years during which you've done nothing to prevent the spread of seditious misinformation on Hacker News. If you were better moderators I might take your guidelines more seriously. My thread with counter-arguments is detached and languishing at the bottom of the page, meanwhile all of the misinformation dominates the conversation comfortably from…

Detaching flamewars so that they languish at the bottom of the page is standard HN moderation and the reason we do it should be obvious. If you don't want that to happen, nothing is easier to avoid (from a moderation point of view): simply provide corrective information respectfully. Of course that is not so easy from a personal frustration point of view—that is something every HN user (certainly including me) has to…

The commons are full of propeganda and misinformation at the hands of your policies to "protect" them. Your guidelines are not holy writ, and are unfit for this task.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#414

Post by chrisseaton »

jcelerier wrote: post #75
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.

yep, compositor latency is infuriating when you're used to non-composited UI

Can you really tell the difference? What's the latency? Are your eyes that sensitive?

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#415

Post by JoshTriplett »

ddevault wrote: post #372
JoshTriplett wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drew, if someone posted a comment saying "there's this Linux feature that's incredibly slow on x86-64", it wouldn't be a refutation to say "it's fast on RISC-V". That would rightfully just produce a response of "that's nice for you, it's still slow on x86-64 and that's what I'm using, so from my perspective the feature is slow in an environment many people use ". If you want this to stop, make GNOME's performance bet…

"there's this Linux feature that's incredibly slow on x86-64" This isn't the appropriate comparison. What they said is "x86-64 is incredibly slow", and then when you teased them for details, what they meant was "this Linux feature is incredibly slow on x86-64". To which the answer isn't "it's fast on RISC-V", but rather, "that's a problem with Linux, not x86-64". If you have a beef with GNOME, then bring it to GNOME.…

Is your goal to fix people's terminology or to fix the actual problem?

It's not an end user's job to tease apart what specific thing is the root cause. If something changes, and their system feels slower, they're going to reasonably assume the thing that changed is at fault. That's doubly true if there's an easy switch to turn that thing on and off (which there often is, by picking a Wayland or non-Wayland session at login), and they can easily evaluate the difference in isolation. It might be cathartic to spend time yelling at people about who is actually at fault, but fixing the root cause would make there not be a fault to seek blame for.

People aren't going to stop running GNOME en-masse. Distributions are not going to abruptly abandon GNOME. If (and I do mean "if") there's some issue with GNOME's Wayland implementation, that's going to be many people's primary exposure to Wayland as a technology.

People will continue working on optimizations, to many places in the stack. It doesn't matter where the fault lies or where the fixes need to happen, the net result is people saying things like "I switched to Wayland and things got slower / less smooth / etc", and they're going to continue saying things like that. It'd be nice if people phrased it more that way (slowness associated with switching to Wayland, rather than Wayland being slow), and provided more details about their environment, rather than implying that "Wayland" is a single piece of software which should incur their ire. It'd be even nicer if there were less ire to go around because more things Just Work.

It's also entirely possible that some of the people in these various threads have issues with some other piece of software in the stack.

> If you have a beef with GNOME, then bring it to GNOME.

I'm not the one with a beef with GNOME; you seem to be. If you have a problem with GNOME, take it to GNOME. GNOME works great for me, and I don't care which Wayland protocols it does or doesn't choose to implement. You haven't even specified what precise change you think ought to happen there, just some general complaints about protocol extensions.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#417

Post by cannedslime »

chrisseaton wrote: post #414
jcelerier wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yep, compositor latency is infuriating when you're used to non-composited UI

Can you really tell the difference? What's the latency? Are your eyes that sensitive?

I think our sight is all a little different. I can clearly see 50/60hz strobing in light when others can't. Back in the old CRT days I would get strained eye sight and nausea if I worked at monitors running below 85hz, unless it had long lasting phosphors like the old monochrome CRTs.

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#419

Post by Const-me »

remexre wrote: post #297

I'm kinda annoyed this is the case before the GBM/EGLStreams argument got resolved... I've done some programming against GBM directly (wanted an OpenGL ES application to be in a "kiosk mode," didn't want to have to install X / a Wayland compositor + configure it), and the whole DRM+GBM stack is kinda _terrible_. Generously, one could call it barely documented; the majority of the useful and correct documentation I fo…

Interesting, probably depends on hardware then. On Pi4, that same workflow (drm/kms without desktop managers, with GLES on top) delivers superior image with no tearing (tearing does happen in windowed mode under load), while consuming less resources than windowed mode. This library: https://github.com/Const-me/Vrmac

Re: The X.Org Server Is Abandonware?

#420

Post by sergeykish »

taeric wrote: post #394
sergeykish wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You clearly have not watched video by X.Org developer, have not you? I expect you are better informed, worked a lot with X.Org codebase and can show some links on your commits. Or if you truly believe there is nothing wrong with X.Org you would become maintainer. > My (often incorrect) views and opinions are my own and not those of anyone I currently or have ever worked for. Please help me make them more informed (an…

Goal shift much? My point here has been to point out that gnome is the benchmark that matters most. That one side seems bent on ignoring that is baffling to me. Sadly, for the most part I have been discouraged from Linux desktop usage in recent years. Shame, as I have been on Linux for a couple of decades now. That said, I confess this is opening my interest. Would love to get myself and my children contributing, and…

> I only really care about performance and Wayland hasn’t been very convincing [0] with no discernible improvement over X11.

there would be no controversy with

"I only really care about GNOME performance and GNOME Wayland hasn’t been very convincing [0] with no discernible improvement over GNOME X11"

GNOME matters for you, it does not matter for me (xmonad, xterm, browsers). If all user see is GNOME he can decide it is Linux that is broken as well.

"The real story behind Wayland and X" by Daniel Stone (link above) specifically shows X11 performance problems, it is view from developer what is wrong with X. The story which we, as users, do not know. We can't blame developers for trying to implement something sane.

I have no contributions to core projects but I don't blame them either.

Post reply on HN