Live data from Hacker News

X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)

x.org

161–170 of 318 posts

Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)

#161
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not, it barely does any of the things X11 is useful for.

100% of the developers who know anything about how graphics works under Linux are focusing on Wayland. Development on Xorg is moribund, with only Xwayland getting significant attention. Hint: X was optimized for 1980s graphics, which was 90% simple blits, line draws, and fills mediated by the CPU perhaps with special fixed-function accelerators for those operations. In 2023, graphics is done with the GPU -- period. Y…

People have been predicting the death of X for about ten years now, ever since Wayland was declared stable. Here you are 6 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13925468 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13922499

And for all the talk about GPU, it feels significantly slower on my (admittedly not very fast) laptop.

Wayland will be the future, I guess, eventually. But X will be around for a long time. GTK 5 is still years away (most aren't even using GTK 4).

Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)

#162

The discussion about "wayland vs X11" is eerily reminiscent of the discussion of "systemd vs. sysv-init"... Some people apparently really do hate it when things change that they seemingly have no control over Edit: I fully expect to be downvoted into oblivion for this post :-D

Simply the fact that systemd turned logs into a binary format that can't be read with standard tools, and this was not (easily? at all?) possible ti cgange made me really strongly dislike it.

systemd has its own tool to read its binary log format, but I've already seen it corrupt its own logs and fail to read it.

And did they do the binary format for efficiency? Get this: I've never seen anything be inefficient due to logging before systemd. Shortly after archlinux switched to it, something was being super slow. Sure enough, it was systemd not being able to handle the amount of ligs something produced.

I think systemd is very opinionated, and something that opinionated should not be such basic piece of the linux landscape. There should be choices of individual components.

Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are presenting this in certain way that I think veers into inaccurate and misleading in an attempt to smooth things over and be nice. What we had before systemd was - 90% glue code, reimplemented quite badly across X distributions. That glue code was, in practice, extremely brittle and very very unfun to attempt to keep even simple daemons running "portably" distribution to distribution. The other 10% was increas…

The internals of systemd are just as brittle, and the model of unit file configuration does not really apply cleanly beyond the simplest cases. So editing unit files becomes an undocumented dark art.

Chiming in here to say that systemd seems to cover the 80% (or even 90%) case pretty nicely, however that last 10-20% is now really difficult.

Anyone who has really delved into systemd knows this but they get shouted down as halting progress and hugging bash scripts, which is disingenuous as bash scripts (as per sysvinit) were painful and had great difficulties in areas such as determinism and parallel execution.

If you ever want an example of what I mean: look at how systemd starts mysql. Someone (not me) spent at least a man month making that work.

I do begrudge the all or nothing approach that systemd is taking (even if it claims to be modular), but I will admit openly: that 80% case is a lot nicer.

Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I'm a big fan of systemd but I can accept that when it first came out it was probably a lot worse than it is today. Similarly, Wayland has a bunch of good ideas, along with a bunch of functionality that isn't there yet. Of course, Wayland also has the problem that it's intentionally excluding some useful features that X had, like global hotkeys and screensharing. I think systemd and Wayland are actually opposit…

> Yeah, I'm a big fan of systemd but I can accept that when it first came out it was probably a lot worse than it is today. The first "large" distro to switch from sysvinit to systemd was Arch, and that switch happened over ten years ago. The switch itself was quite rocky (the upgrade path was not particularly seamless, and while Arch users tend to be more tolerant of that sort of thing, it's worth mentioning). That…

> The first "large" distro to switch from sysvinit to systemd was Arch

No. In terms of released to users, the first was Fedora; the second was Arch; then Mageia; then openSUSE. In terms of integrated into the distribution, the first was Fedora; the second was Mageia; then openSUSE; then Arch.

Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#Adoption

Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)

#165

The discussion about "wayland vs X11" is eerily reminiscent of the discussion of "systemd vs. sysv-init"... Some people apparently really do hate it when things change that they seemingly have no control over Edit: I fully expect to be downvoted into oblivion for this post :-D

Simply the fact that systemd turned logs into a binary format that can't be read with standard tools, and this was not (easily? at all?) possible ti cgange made me really strongly dislike it. systemd has its own tool to read its binary log format, but I've already seen it corrupt its own logs and fail to read it. And did they do the binary format for efficiency? Get this: I've never seen anything be inefficient due t…

[deleted]

Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)

#166

The discussion about "wayland vs X11" is eerily reminiscent of the discussion of "systemd vs. sysv-init"... Some people apparently really do hate it when things change that they seemingly have no control over Edit: I fully expect to be downvoted into oblivion for this post :-D

I don't really see the parallels.

For the past few months I've been investigating and working on porting parts of Xfce to be usable under Wayland. It's astonishing the number of features that are just not implementable at all on Wayland, at least not without inventing new non-standard Wayland protocols. (Another option is refactoring the desktop environment so all the individual components run in the same process as the compositor, and have access to the compositor's internals, but that's unacceptable for what are hopefully obvious reasons.)

Even after over a decade, Wayland still seems quite immature and poorly thought-through. The protocol standardization seems geared toward satisfying GNOME's use-cases and ignoring everyone else's. The wlroots camp has gone their own way on a bunch of things, which is fine, but fractures the landscape a bit.

Making Xfce fully Wayland means turning the window manager, xfwm4, into a Wayland compositor. For someone already familiar with xfwm4's code base, that's a year or more of work (and a requirement we'd have is that it would have to support both X11 and Wayland, further complicating things).

Even if fixing inherent problems in X11 (security, graphics rendering, etc.) would require compatibility breaks, personally I would find that preferable to throwing the entire thing out and having to build (and build on) an entirely new system. As much as I disagree with JWZ's attitude on a lot of things, his description of most open source projects as a "Cascade of Attention-Deficit Teenagers" seems to be pretty accurate, at least here. X11 hasn't been improved and fixed because no one wants to maintain and improve X.org anymore, and the people who used to maintain it would prefer the fun of chasing and working on new shiny things, even if it means decades of new make-work for anyone working in the Linux GUI space.

Don't get me wrong, I am the first one to cut off anyone at the knees who feels they are entitled to tell open source developers what to do with their time (though it gets a bit more complicated when many of those developers are employed by corporations to do this work). But I think it's pretty shitty to push the desktop in this direction and essentially force desktop and toolkit and application developers to choose between stepping up to maintain and build on X.org (something well out of most people's wheelhouse), or spend a huge amount of time porting to a new display system.

Having said that, Wayland does have promise to be a better system than X11, even though it will likely take another decade to achieve feature parity with what we already have. So I'll continue to work on getting there eventually, even though I resent the fact that I have to learn an entirely new display system so I can work on reimplementing the same features again instead of building new features, fixing bugs, and making things more polished.

Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)

#167

The discussion about "wayland vs X11" is eerily reminiscent of the discussion of "systemd vs. sysv-init"... Some people apparently really do hate it when things change that they seemingly have no control over Edit: I fully expect to be downvoted into oblivion for this post :-D

Simply the fact that systemd turned logs into a binary format that can't be read with standard tools, and this was not (easily? at all?) possible ti cgange made me really strongly dislike it. systemd has its own tool to read its binary log format, but I've already seen it corrupt its own logs and fail to read it. And did they do the binary format for efficiency? Get this: I've never seen anything be inefficient due t…

redhat seem to have tried their best to use systemd to turn Linux into Windows NT

    - over-complicated service manager
    - binary logs that are difficult to find
    - incomprehensible task scheduler
    - hidden caching dns resolution service
    - disk manager
    - network manager
    - login management
    - crappy ntp client
all it needs is svchost.exe

something that was 100% reliable is now about 98% reliable, and when it inevitably breaks it's completely un-introspectable by standard tooling

I have yet to see a sysadmin write a 100% correct systemd service unit file

Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)

#168
post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “barely usable” I run Hyprland just fine with Wayland, I seriously doubt it is barely usable. > IPv6 of desktops Dunno if you’ve looked at your ip link lately but you probably have an ipv6 address!

Having an ipv6 address is the easy part. Having ping6 actually able to ping something over ipv6 is another thing entirely.

I don’t know that much. Why does ping6 matter? Isn’t most internet traffic HTTPS? Like when I check my cloud logs they’re all coming from ipv6 addrs, so I figured it was working

Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)

#169
post #136

The discussion about "wayland vs X11" is eerily reminiscent of the discussion of "systemd vs. sysv-init"... Some people apparently really do hate it when things change that they seemingly have no control over Edit: I fully expect to be downvoted into oblivion for this post :-D

Wayland has a massive loss in functionality (in the name of "security" and off-loading implementation details to compositors/window managers) compared to X11 though. Stuff like xdotool, screen sharing, clipboard sharing, etc. is much harder.

sloppy-focus-follows-mouse is the feature that keeps me on X. A basic Unix feature forever, completely broken in Ubuntu's Wayland.

Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)

#170
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wayland has a massive loss in functionality (in the name of "security" and off-loading implementation details to compositors/window managers) compared to X11 though. Stuff like xdotool, screen sharing, clipboard sharing, etc. is much harder.

sloppy-focus-follows-mouse is the feature that keeps me on X. A basic Unix feature forever, completely broken in Ubuntu's Wayland.

It works fine on Arch with the Hyprland compositor: putting the mouse from the terminal to waybar, you can still type in the terminal.

When was the last time you really tried wayland? My first (and last) time was 2017. Much has changed!

In a few years, when wine support is perfected, I think people dissing wayland will be seen as quaint as those insisting on a distribution "unsoiled" by systemd are seen today :)

Post reply on HN