Earlier quoted context omitted.
« They have, however, added things that most people do care about - such as different HiDPI across multiple monitors and an extremely thin (low latency) render path. » I keep hearing this: "they've added things people care about, such as..." then a shopping list of utterly irrelevant stuff I can't even see. >1 screen with different DPI is THE ONLY thing Wayland does that I want. I don't give a flying monkey about ren…
> If someone found a way to add variable DPI to Xinerama What does different DPI mean for you though? Xinerama causes the server to report the same fake DPI across monitors for backwards compatibility reasons (last year or so Xorg was released with a better approximation for DPI but it apparently broke a bunch of programs so it was reverted in the next release), but applications that care about DPI can still use the…
Wayland on OpenBSD
201–210 of 214 posts
Re: Wayland on OpenBSD
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
This looks like sabotage from the Wayland-centric mesa developers who didn't add TearFree to the core xorg modesetting driver because the older one had this feature. Use V-Sync in the compositor.
Where is your pull request? Don't you think it is more likely that graphics software developers are just proposing the best software they can offer? Why would they deliberately push bad software? Wouldn't that make their product offering worse, and also make their own experiences worse and future development more difficult? I don't know the incentives are there for a conspiracy in this case.
Re: Wayland on OpenBSD
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is about OpenBSD, whose team continues to maintain and update Xenocara. If I had to guess I would guess that when Linux distro grow tired of the new shiny they will switch to a port of Xenocara for their display systems.
> This is about OpenBSD, whose team continues to maintain and update Xenocara. Did you reply to the wrong comment? How does this address what I wrote? > If I had to guess I would guess that when Linux distro grow tired of the new shiny they will switch to a port of Xenocara for their display systems. Linux distros are not going back to Xorg. Xenocara is basically just that adapted to OpenBSD, but all the Xorg develop…
There never going to fully "leave" Xorg (Debian still ships token ring software FFS so the idea that they'll stop shipping X is just a weird fantasy some people have for some reason) so in that sense they won't "go back". Void is already working on packaging Xenocara and I doubt they'll be the last one; OpenBSD will just become the team that provides both a display server and a secure remote shell for lots of the Linux ecosystem.
Re: Wayland on OpenBSD
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is about OpenBSD, whose team continues to maintain and update Xenocara. Did you reply to the wrong comment? How does this address what I wrote? > If I had to guess I would guess that when Linux distro grow tired of the new shiny they will switch to a port of Xenocara for their display systems. Linux distros are not going back to Xorg. Xenocara is basically just that adapted to OpenBSD, but all the Xorg develop…
> Linux distros are not going back to Xorg. There never going to fully "leave" Xorg (Debian still ships token ring software FFS so the idea that they'll stop shipping X is just a weird fantasy some people have for some reason) so in that sense they won't "go back". Void is already working on packaging Xenocara and I doubt they'll be the last one; OpenBSD will just become the team that provides both a display server a…
Obviously we're talking about using it as the default display server, and to that end they are and will. X will stay around for compatibility for quite a while of course.
> so in that sense they won't "go back".
No, so they won't switch to some other Xorg system, they'll just keep using what they have.
> Void is already working on packaging Xenocara and I doubt they'll be the last one; OpenBSD will just become the team that provides both a display server and a secure remote shell for lots of the Linux ecosystem.
I'm not sure about every last esoteric Linux distro, but the big ones. To that end, they are the ones actually paying people to develop Xorg and have been for many years. I don't see why they would move to something else even if they did go back to X, which they won't.
Re: Wayland on OpenBSD
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Linux distros are not going back to Xorg. There never going to fully "leave" Xorg (Debian still ships token ring software FFS so the idea that they'll stop shipping X is just a weird fantasy some people have for some reason) so in that sense they won't "go back". Void is already working on packaging Xenocara and I doubt they'll be the last one; OpenBSD will just become the team that provides both a display server a…
> There never going to fully "leave" Xorg (Debian still ships token ring software FFS so the idea that they'll stop shipping X is just a weird fantasy some people have for some reason) Obviously we're talking about using it as the default display server, and to that end they are and will. X will stay around for compatibility for quite a while of course. > so in that sense they won't "go back". No, so they won't switc…
Re: Wayland on OpenBSD
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean stuff like bugs with boot screen leaking data not being fixed with X and so on.
How does that have anything to do with X not keeping up with new hardware or using the same kernel APIs as Wayland for communicating with said hardware? What you describe is a minor annoyance at most, not at all on the same level as being unable to use X because of newer hardware. Even if it isn't fixed, one can still be worked around or just ignored, but the other just makes the whole thing literally unusable.
And X won't have parity for hardware features anyway. Like HDR - it will be Wayland only. And so on and so forth. So X is fried on all ends in the long term.
It's not that it's not possible to use kernel interfaces - it's just no one will bother putting an effort in developing X. It's already happening.
Re: Wayland on OpenBSD
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wayland is a replacement for X11 in the same way that a tricycle is a replacement for a tractor. They have thrown everything difficult out of the spec and only implemented the most trivial functionality around a security model which you must actively break to get actual work (like screen shots) done. That Wayland is 10 years old and still barely usable should tell you how far software developers have fallen in the la…
Yeah, please repeat the same bullshit for the umpteenth time. This happens under every goddamn wayland-related thread from people who have never ever touched anything graphics related with this typical cocky attitude - at this point this is just fake news. So if X is so great, why exactly have the very developers who worked on it all switched to Wayland? Like, if they could made something you believe is good, shouldn…
"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead." (a.k.a. please don't feed the trolls)
...we'd appreciate it.
Re: Wayland on OpenBSD
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
Waypipe requires software rendering from any server that doesn't happen to have its own headless GPU. As long as Wayland doesn't deliver a remote rendering protocol, the best path forward seems to be shipping Javascript apps to a browser on the end user's machine (where his GPU will be available).
> Waypipe requires software rendering from any server that doesn't happen to have its own headless GPU. X has to do that with DRI and client side rendering too, doesn't it? > As long as Wayland doesn't deliver a remote rendering protocol, the best path forward seems to be shipping Javascript apps to a browser on the end user's machine (where his GPU will be available). Why does that seem like the best path forward? S…
Re: Wayland on OpenBSD
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If someone found a way to add variable DPI to Xinerama What does different DPI mean for you though? Xinerama causes the server to report the same fake DPI across monitors for backwards compatibility reasons (last year or so Xorg was released with a better approximation for DPI but it apparently broke a bunch of programs so it was reverted in the next release), but applications that care about DPI can still use the…
Fascinating! Thank you. So, it's in there, but it needs to be exposed in a reliable way?
1. The toolkit/applications needs to support scaling, preferably using arbitrary (aka fractional) scaling.
2. The window manager needs to obtain per-output (output=monitor) DPI and associate a scaling value for each output (note that scaling and DPI are not necessarily tied - someone might e.g. want a high scaling factor for a secondary 1440p monitor because they have it farther away than their primary monitor).
3. The application/toolkit needs to tell to the window manager that it supports scaling as well as know that the window manager supports scaling. Window properties can be used to do that.
4. The window manager needs somehow to communicate to the toolkit/application to scale a window. This can happen either because the window was dragged to a monitor (output) with different output but it could also be because, e.g. the user explicitly requested to scale a window from the window menu (e.g. for making a screencast for youtube). This "somehow" is basically a set of messages since the mechanism is already used for other things already.
5. If a toolkit/application does not support scaling (i.e. it does not have the appropriate properties) the window manager may decide to fake it itself (e.g. by redirecting the window output to a pixmap and then drawing that pixmap scaled). If a toolkit/application does support scaling but the window manager doesn't then it is up to the toolkit/application to decide, e.g. it may do its own scaling by tracking the output the window is and scaling itself appropriately (this will need some heuristics to avoid being too janky as the toolkit/application is essentially taking over part of what the window manager's job and toolkits/applications may just not want to do that).
If it isn't already obvious, the issue here is that this concerns multiple entities:
1. There needs to be some sort of commonly accepted messages and properties for the window managers and applications to communicate scaling.
2. Toolkits (and applications that use custom toolkits) need to implement support for scaling and handling the above messages and properties.
3. Window managers also need to implement the above messages and properties, implement some sort of scaling configuration and use the appropriate RandR functionality to setup initial per-output scale configuration.
AFAIK of all the above the only thing that exists is that the X server can provide the necessary information and Qt supports fractional scaling. AFAIK it also can use its own root property to set per-output scaling but it does the scaling itself independent from the window manager so it is far from ideal.
For the rest basically the toolkit and window manager developers need to be convinced to work on it and also come up with a common message/property protocol, both of which IMO are the hard parts - compared to that, the technical side is easy :-P.
Re: Wayland on OpenBSD
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Waypipe requires software rendering from any server that doesn't happen to have its own headless GPU. X has to do that with DRI and client side rendering too, doesn't it? > As long as Wayland doesn't deliver a remote rendering protocol, the best path forward seems to be shipping Javascript apps to a browser on the end user's machine (where his GPU will be available). Why does that seem like the best path forward? S…
It was an architectural mistake to start bypassing GLX and depending on DRI at each app, and Wayland wants to cement that. That’s why we see so many webapps where we would have expected remote windows driven by a backend server; Javascript became the GPU-local end of a lot of opaque rendering protocols to fill the gap.
1. Well I assert that it was not an architectural mistake. So that doesn't really move the conversation. 2. Whether or not it was a mistake, does not change how things are. So you can't really use that as a point against Wayland for X.
> and Wayland wants to cement that. That’s why we see so many webapps where we would have expected remote windows driven by a backend server; Javascript became the GPU-local end of a lot of opaque rendering protocols to fill the gap.
Client side has been driven overwhelmingly by Windows in the past decades though, so I don't see how that is the reason. The number of javascript apps caused by DRI in X must be approximately zero, and caused by Wayland exactly zero.