Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wayland vs. X – Overview

wayland.freedesktop.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 186 posts

Re: Wayland vs. X – Overview

#91

Post by ApolloFortyNine »

horusthegame wrote: post #62
ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just setup wayland a couple months ago, so everything should be pretty recent, and couldn't ever get screen sharing to work. It's discord electron, which I think is having some weird interaction with xwayland, but I only researched it for a bit before deciding it wasn't worth it. Games though can be a nightmare, a recent nvidia driver seems to have created stuttering across all games using X to varying degrees. (do…

> Games though can be a nightmare, a recent nvidia driver seems to have created stuttering across all games using X to varying degrees. (downgrading the driver fixes the issue) On ubuntu (Kubuntu really), and as a gamer, I've seen no issues with nVidia on X, both native Linux and Steam Proton games rock on.

The games use X, but I'm using Wayland. Wayland native is fine, X games are not.

Re: Wayland vs. X – Overview

#92

Post by RealCodingOtaku »

ur-whale wrote: post #74

So, here's one thing I need to know: X can open a window on another machine over ssh Can Wayland do the same?

You can do it with waypipe[1]. But Wayland itself doesn't support remote rendering by choice[2] as it is outside its scope.

[1] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mstoeckl/waypipe/

[2] https://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html#heading_toc_j_8

Re: Wayland vs. X – Overview

#93

Post by FirmwareBurner »

nwsm wrote: post #88
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No idea. I'm using Pop OS. So you're being upvoted to the top by praising how flawless Wayland works on an OS that runs by default on X11? :)) Aww man, I hope there's a miscommunication somewhere, like you switched PopOS from X11 to Wayland, because otherwise this is HN comedy gold.

> like you switched PopOS from X11 to Wayland > When I tried that with X I got lots of juddery tearing. They said it pretty explicitly

No, they didn't explicitly say they tried X11 "on the same OS". You can assume that, but it's not explicitly stated in the context. It might as well be experiences on different OSs/instances. OP needs to clarify.

And from my experience, there's distros that work better with X11 which is why they ship with it out of the box instead of Wayland(like Mint, EndeavourOS and Kubuntu), and ones that work better on Wayland out of the box, like Ubuntu and Fedora.

Re: Wayland vs. X – Overview

#94

Post by bzzzt »

ndiddy wrote: post #59
tapoxi wrote: post #2

[flagged]

My main issue with Wayland is how big of a missed opportunity it is. If you're going to introduce a massive breaking change like this to modernize the Linux desktop, the least you can do is make it an actually compelling design. Wayland was originally created to fix the parts of Xorg that made it difficult to use it for embedded devices (digital signage, car infotainment systems, etc), so the base protocol only defin…

I don't see how a client application blocking its main event handler isn't broken? If you're going to do lots of work or blocking I/O you spin it off to another thread so UI updates will be handled without pause.

Re: Wayland vs. X – Overview

#95

Post by aidenn0 »

nolist_policy wrote: post #77
ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is a 'day 1' feature everyone hacks back in is clipboard sharing and screen share, each of which remove a decent chunk of these protections. Each essentially grants access to another apps data. Plus the attack angle is someone having permission to execute apps on your machine, there's plenty of other nasty things they could do.

> Plus the attack angle is someone having permission to execute apps on your machine, there's plenty of other nasty things they could do. No, the attack angle is either a untrusted app running in a sandbox (fatpak, snap or crosvm or qemu with wayland passtrough[1]) with only a connection to the compositor or a trusted app running in a sandbox getting exploited, any apps handling foreign data is suspect here (Web brow…

Everybody who uses web video conferencing will give their web-browser permission to record the screen. This already takes a huge chunk out of the security advantages. The advantage is not zero, but it doesn't seem to be as big of a win as one might want.

Re: Wayland vs. X – Overview

#96

Post by vetinari »

rhabarba wrote: post #86
vetinari wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should be Windows or Mac support a concern for Wayland compositors? DWM or Quartz authors don't care about Linux either.

To be fair, X (VcXsrv) works on Windows and (XQuartz) pre-M1 macOS.

They do, yes. Nobody will prevent anyone trying to port Wayland compositors, either. If that's your itch, feel free to go for it.

But the Wayland compositor authors will steer their software to run effectively on Linux. If that means it is difficult to port to Windows or Mac (whether because they miss dma-buf, or demand something that the native platform won't provide to non-system process), so be it.

Re: Wayland vs. X – Overview

#97

Post by craftkiller »

superkuh wrote: post #79
craftkiller wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been running Wayland (sway) on FreeBSD flawlessly for years.

Ah yes, sway, the one of the waylands that refuses to add support for complex mouse/keyboard and alternate input devices. https://github.com/swaywm/wlroots/issues/2378 . You've been running a wayland, not wayland, because there is no "wayland": only many different waylands.

> You've been running a wayland, not wayland, because there is no "wayland": only many different waylands.

I am aware, that is why I specified which compositor I am running. The comment I replied to said (emphasis mine) "*Wayland* won't work well on non-Linux systems" which is clearly false. To put it into another context: only a subset of C programs run on windows, but it would be silly to claim C won't work on windows.

As for the bug report you linked, the response seems quite reasonable:

> We already have Wayland protocols for input emulation. I think libei should add support for those.

Since standardized protocols exist, why should every compositor have to integrate this library instead of the library integrating support for the standardized protocols?

Re: Wayland vs. X – Overview

#98

Post by edent »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #70
edent wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You haven't even mentioned which wayland compositor you are using. No idea. I'm using Pop OS. So whatever that uses. Gnome is the DE, I think?

>No idea. I'm using Pop OS. So you're being upvoted to the top by praising how flawless Wayland works on an OS that runs by default on X11? :)) Aww man, I hope there's a miscommunication somewhere, like you switched PopOS from X11 to Wayland, because otherwise this is HN comedy gold.

I had to do some pretty hardcore hacking to get Wayland working on Pop.

I wrote it up at https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2020/05/fix-screen-tearing-on-rotat...

Warning - you'll need to be at least a Level 17 Linux expert to understand the complexity involved.

Re: Wayland vs. X – Overview

#99

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

ACS_Solver wrote: post #19
tapoxi wrote: post #2

[flagged]

Your prediction is probably right but it highlights what I still find to be a fundamental problem with Wayland. It's something that's very much user-facing, as it affects the behavior of desktop environments and several types of programs. It's also something that developers want because they don't want to write X applications or maintain Xorg itself. The disconnect is developers want Wayland to replace X ASAP, while…

> As a developer, I needed to port a custom Linux system to hardware that only has Wayland drivers and it was a giant pain. Wayland offers no advantage at all for that system but it broke a lot of functionality that relied on X in terms of window placement, etc.

FWIW, I've had decent luck running cage ( https://www.hjdskes.nl/projects/cage/ ), then on that xwayland, and then just ignoring wayland and running X clients. The result does still have some slight quirks, but it mostly works fine.

Re: Wayland vs. X – Overview

#100

Post by bzzzt »

account42 wrote: post #84
tapoxi wrote: post #2

[flagged]

> They needed to do this Few things are ever truly needed . Those things don't include Wayland. That doesn't mean there are reasons for it but it does mean you can't just discard the downsides. > Xorg was complicated And Wayland will be complicated too by the time its mature. Especially when you include all the other compontents needed to provide the same functionality as X.org > Xorg was [...] insecure Under what th…

> Under what threat model? Personally I have no interest in the zero-trust model needed for proprietary app stores and would rather not pay the cost.

Under the threat model of websites using browser exploits to grab other data on your system?

Or under the threat model of company policy or legislation not allowing you to handle confidential information on a system that can't offer even a basic guarantee of privacy.

Post reply on HN