Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Gnome 3.12 Delayed To Sync With Wayland Release

Unknown Lamer posted about 10 months ago | from the just-in-time-for-the-x11-joke dept.

GNOME 204

sfcrazy writes "Gnome developers are planning to delay the release of Gnome 3.12 by approximately a week. It's a deliberate delay to sync the release with the availability of Wayland 1.5. Matthias Clasen (Fedora and Gnome developer) explains that 'the GNOME release team is pondering moving the date for 3.12.0 out by approximately a week, to align the schedule with the Wayland release plans (a 1.4.91 release including all the xdg-shell API we need is planned for April 1). The latter 3.11.x milestones would be shifted as well, to avoid lengthening the freeze period unnecessarily.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46162795)

A delay for the First of April?

Who can believe that?

Gnome 3 - Windows 8 for Linux (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46162837)

Gnome 3 - Windows 8 for Linux

Re:Gnome 3 - Windows 8 for Linux (1)

andreicristianpetcu (1964402) | about 10 months ago | (#46163013)

NO!
Gnome 3 - Cool shell for GNU/Linux

Re:Gnome 3 - Windows 8 for Linux (2)

macson_g (1551397) | about 10 months ago | (#46163099)

'Cool' as in 'Dead and cool'

Re:Gnome 3 - Windows 8 for Linux (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 10 months ago | (#46163495)

You spelled "Unity" wrong.

Re:Gnome 3 - Windows 8 for Linux (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 10 months ago | (#46164009)

No, he's right. You see Unity was the reaction to GNOME 3, the part where people "in charge" of the GNU/Linux UI realized that GNOME 3 was a lemon, and decided to "fix" it.

Unity is Windows 8.1 for GNU/Linux.

Re:Gnome 3 - Windows 8 for Linux (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 10 months ago | (#46164277)

Isn't Unity built on Gnome3? You may mean Gnome Shell, which I find far more usable than Unity, but just as unstable. I've since moved on to KDE and can't see myself leaving unless I have an old machine where I'll use Xfce or OpenBox or something.

Re:Gnome 3 - Windows 8 for Linux (1)

Rob Y. (110975) | about 10 months ago | (#46165285)

Not quite. Windows 8 required completely new apps to use the 'modern' half of the OS. Gnome 3, Unity, KDE and the rest can all run ALL apps (except maybe some applets that are desktop-specific) on the same desktop. Whether you like that particular desktop is a different issue altogether. But on Windows 8, even if you like the new desktop, you can't use it to run Win32 apps. That was Microsoft's biggest mistake. They should've made it so Win32 apps could be rejiggered to work in the new environment - even if some UI changes were required. But they were trying to leverage their control of the desktop OEM's to seed their late-to-market tablet and phone system.

Re:Gnome 3 - Windows 8 for Linux (1)

EndlessNameless (673105) | about 10 months ago | (#46165505)

For Windows 8, if you're referring to the new Metro/Modern UI as the new desktop, the lack of Win32 compatibility was not a mistake. There is a huge security shift moving to Metro/Modern.

They finally implemented a secured app ecosystem. Instead of granting installers blanket admin privileges, they require permissions manifests that are enforced by the local security system. This makes some traditional trojans (like keyloggers) impossible without privilege escalation exploits. Their read/write privileges are also restricted unless their manifests request more.

This is similar to how Android presents the user with a list of permissions for each new application (or for an update, if that particular update includes new permissions).

While some apps can never move to Metro/Modern, any non-technical user will have better security with Metro/Modern apps. Personally, I use none of those apps on the one Windows 8 system I have---but I would prefer it if my parents switched. I believe Metro/Modern is useless for Slashdot-level users and an important step for everyone else. Given a few iterations, it could knock down the wall between security and usability.

Re:Gnome 3 - Windows 8 for Linux (1)

jcdr (178250) | about 10 months ago | (#46165927)

Gnome 3, Unity, KDE and the rest can all run ALL apps (except maybe some applets that are desktop-specific) on the same desktop.

If you just lunch a unique single window application like a browser, maybe. But my experience with Gnome 3 and Unity are really bad as soon as I want a lot of virtual desktop with a lot of windows into each of them. So bad that I now use XFCE or MATE to get my shiny 8x8 virtual desktop grid to fit all my projects.

Gnome 3 break almost any applications that use multiple windows or full screen, in addition to break virtually all preexisting applets without decent replacement. Unity is even more broken with the full screen mode and there old style common top menu bar that behave erratically. Managing a lot of windows on those desktop is a unbelieving nightmare. The most ridicule part of the story is that both scarified decade of improvement in Gnome 2 in the name of a more intuitive interface. For me, there both miserably failed:
* If the users just wants to start a few application full screen, Gnome 2 was really capable of doing so very well.
* If the users wants a powerful, comfortable, and fast desktop for complex task with a lot of windows, Gnome 2 was also the best choice.

And I am certain to not be alone with the regret of Gnome 2, since so much contribution effort are now given to MATE project for example. I will not be surprised that MATE will overtake Gnome 3 in a few years. I fact, I hope this will be the case, because projects that are unable to understand his users base will see there contribution effort going down over time.

I'm sorry I'm an idiot (4, Interesting)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about 10 months ago | (#46162853)

I've read through the Wayland site and another half dozen pages that are obviously over my head and I just don't understand what Wayland is or what it's advantages are. I think it's suppose to be replacing X11, but I don't really understand X11 either, other than it's a method of getting things onto the screen. So I'm throwing my ignorance out there hoping I won't be flamed out of existence and someone can explain or point me to a laymen description of Wayland, and/or X11 and how one is better than the other. It seems like it should be a big deal since I've read there's been a lot of dissatisfaction with X11 for quite sometime and yet no one's ever done anything about it. That is until now, if Wayland is in fact a replacement

I'm sorry I realize this has been discussed several times and I'm sorry I'm just not getting it.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (1)

Improv (2467) | about 10 months ago | (#46162885)

It is in fact an intended replacement for X11. It'd be hard to talk about the differences in much detail if you're not particularly technical.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (3, Informative)

Dave Whiteside (2055370) | about 10 months ago | (#46162911)

X11 low level is such a huge mess of everything from text to pixels to anything higher
wayland is a much better step up to modern display tech
[basically]

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46163143)

It's busy work for a team that believe X11 is antiquated and needs replacement. Wayland fans will argue that X11 is a huge mess that tries to do to much while in reality it has been doing its job for many decades.

In other words, we are throwing away the baby with the bath water because some people suffer from NIH syndrome and gladly trade away stability for something shiny in hopes to encourage more gaming on Linux despite the questionable performance improvements.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46163641)

I couldn't help but notice your post's distinct lack of citations.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46163733)

I want just to point out that X11 as in Xorg is now stable and can mostly run without configuration by hand thanks to the people behind Wayland. People forget the past easily...

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46164281)

X11 doesn't even do anything anymore. Go watch one of the many presentations made by the many developers who have been working on X11 for over 20 years. They're not even sure what X11 does anymore, nearly everything bypasses it and just pushes around buffers, which X11 does not handle well at all.

The one thing that stood out is they said X11 can not implement vsync at all without breaking all compatibility. They are embarrassed that code is still being used in 2014 that does not handle vsync and gives "screen tearing", which other systems have had fixed since the mid 90s.

99% of the current use cases for X11 are now managing buffers and X11 does not manage buffers. Wayland is designed to handle the most common use case in a good way.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46165339)

X is all about buffers. They are called pixmaps I think. It also has an obsolete drawing API which is not used by modern applications - this is not a problem. The render extension which defines compositing and I used by modern applications was introduced in 2000. It is also fully network transparent. The other things you mention can be fixed in X. It seems this is what DRI3 and present extension are about. What is a hack in X is direct rendering (at least before DRI3). Direct rendering is a performance optimization for local applications. A normal desktop (without wobbling windows) works just fine without it.

I have to say I am not too excited about loosing decades of backwards compatibility and network transparency to make direct rendering a bit better. This is also optimizing in the wrong direction. GPUs will be integrated with CPUs more and more. DRI will soon only be about optimizing away some memcpys. In contrast, fast networks appear everywhere. To me, networks transparency seems far more relevant to the future than DRI. But I think this is not even an issue, DRI will probably be equally good in X as in Wayland.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (5, Insightful)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | about 10 months ago | (#46164677)

That team of wayland developers happens to be largely the same team who used to work on X, and wayland is endorsed by the X.org foundation. I've no technical opinion of wayland, but it's easy to see that X.org and the developers of X are in a better position to evaluate the need for it than you are.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (2)

larry bagina (561269) | about 10 months ago | (#46165573)

100% agreement. For example, RCS works perfectly fine. Why anyone wasted their time developing svn, hg, or git is a mystery to me.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (5, Informative)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about 10 months ago | (#46162951)

This talk is insightful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about 10 months ago | (#46163211)

This is very helpful, thank you.

I'm about 18 minutes in and they're starting to make sense now. The first ten minutes is really just a lot of back story on the speaker. Somewhere between ten and 18 minutes he starts getting into the issues with X.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (4, Insightful)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about 10 months ago | (#46163289)

At 28:51

Wayland you can actually describe to people, X I still haven't been able to.

Now I don't feel so bad about not understanding it.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (2)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 10 months ago | (#46162959)

I've read through the Wayland site and another half dozen pages that are obviously over my head and I just don't understand what Wayland is or what it's advantages are. I think it's suppose to be replacing X11, but I don't really understand X11 either, other than it's a method of getting things onto the screen. So I'm throwing my ignorance out there hoping I won't be flamed out of existence and someone can explain or point me to a laymen description of Wayland, and/or X11 and how one is better than the other. It seems like it should be a big deal since I've read there's been a lot of dissatisfaction with X11 for quite sometime and yet no one's ever done anything about it. That is until now, if Wayland is in fact a replacement

I'm sorry I realize this has been discussed several times and I'm sorry I'm just not getting it.

Think of it as X12, the new version of X11. X11 came out when COBOL was king and while it and COBOL still work, there have been many advances in hardware and software since then.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (2, Interesting)

timeOday (582209) | about 10 months ago | (#46163057)

What's funny is that the worst part of X11 is how badly it does exactly what it was designed to do - remote display - because it is so slow if the network has any latency (too many synchronous calls). You certainly can't imagine something from 25(?) years ago bombing today because its RAM or CPU or bandwidth requirements are too high. Clearly, latency is not riding that curve, and must instead be designed around.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (2)

jbolden (176878) | about 10 months ago | (#46163139)

Remember X11 was designed for low latency networks (LANs). It is great there. No one had interest in graphics over WANs (which mostly didn't exist) when X11 came out. But you are absolutely right, remote display is often quite bad on X11 over distance. Also the fact it doesn't have a security subsystem is a huge problem with actually using it for remote display.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 10 months ago | (#46165165)

I suppose it was a "great" improvement at the time. In retrospect, the lack of ability to even migrate an X Client from one display to another sure feels like a glaring limitation.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (1)

Uecker (1842596) | about 10 months ago | (#46165467)

Migrating X clients. This is not a limitation of X. Some X clients can do it (see libdisplaymigration from the GPE palm desktop environment) and you could add it to others with a LD_PRELOAD hack. I always wondered why the toolkits did not add it. It would be a really useful feature. Much more useful than wobbling windows or all the other crap we got.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about 10 months ago | (#46163151)

what it was designed to do - remote display

Ok, now things make a lot more sense. It's amazing how one piece of the puzzle really brings out the picture. So essentially X was designed to do more than just display, which is why I've always been confused about what X actually did. Sometimes I thought it was a graphics driver, sometimes I thought it was a network protocol, but it's basically both.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (4, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | about 10 months ago | (#46163237)

X11 was the protocol for the last big 'users don't need good hardware' fad. In the brave old future, we'd all have dumb X terminals on our desk and run our software on big iron servers while the display went over the LAN to the X terminal.

In the brave new future, we're now going to run our software on virtual cloud servers while the display goes over the Internet to our web browser, using Javascript instead of X11.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (2)

kick6 (1081615) | about 10 months ago | (#46164193)

what it was designed to do - remote display

Ok, now things make a lot more sense. It's amazing how one piece of the puzzle really brings out the picture. So essentially X was designed to do more than just display, which is why I've always been confused about what X actually did. Sometimes I thought it was a graphics driver, sometimes I thought it was a network protocol, but it's basically both.

don't forget it's also a print server, and a binary interpreter too. This is why wayland proponents think X11 is a mess.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about 10 months ago | (#46164445)

don't forget it's also a print server, and a binary interpreter too

I can't forget that because I didn't know it in the first place.

Thanks, I'm not feeling so dumb anymore as many people here have pointed out the confusion is that the developers don't know what X is or what to do with it and Wayland is only intended to replace a small part of what X does. My feelings are although it's always sad to see a tried and true method that just works, or people have learned to work around, thrown away, it just makes sense to start over with a fresh perspective and lessons learned, especially when there's just so much bloat the code base becomes unmanageable. Maybe in five to ten years Wayland *will* be just as bad as X is now, but honestly if X is bad now, after 30 years, just think of how horrible it'll be in another ten. So it's still better to start fresh and get another 30 years out of Wayland at which point it could be redone again for whatever new hardware exists.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (2)

0123456 (636235) | about 10 months ago | (#46163189)

What's funny is that the worst part of X11 is how badly it does exactly what it was designed to do - remote display - because it is so slow if the network has any latency (too many synchronous calls).

Well, duh.

X11 was designed for remote display over LAN, not WAN. Which is how most of us use it. The Internet barely existed at the time.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (2)

preflex (1840068) | about 10 months ago | (#46164769)

X11 was designed for remote display over LAN, not WAN. Which is how most of us use it. The Internet barely existed at the time.

Actually, I think most of us use it for local display. It's so bad at remote these days, it's not even very useful over LAN.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46163007)

In my opinion...

Wayland + Systemd + Gnome 3 + kernelspace Dbus = transforming Linux into Windows. Or something more like Windows. They represent a complete rejection of the foundational Unix philosophy [wikipedia.org] .

Basically the people behind it want to create a system that is not Unixlike, but they don't want to be bothered with attracting developers who are interested in that as an honestly stated goal and they don't want to be bothered with other "from the ground up" tasks like carefully designing such a system from scratch. So instead they are playing politics and co-opting the existing developer pool GNU/Linux has earned to transform it into something it is not and was never intended to be, one bolted-on feature at a time.

Even if they wind up making a fantastic system, I strongly object to their methods. I'm not sure if these methods could really lead to a great system. Maybe they can, but I doubt it.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (4, Insightful)

jbolden (176878) | about 10 months ago | (#46163165)

Let me just point out, Wayland came out of the X11 community. This version of how they recruited is total fabrication.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (0, Flamebait)

0123456 (636235) | about 10 months ago | (#46163249)

Let me just point out, Wayland came out of the X11 community.

Yeah, the people who wrote the X11 code and keep complaining about how bad it is are going to write the new wonderful, shiny display interface, but, trust them, it will all be wonderful and fart unicorns this time.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46163275)

That code is older than the people who maintain it

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (2)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about 10 months ago | (#46163391)

I was just about to say that. I'm watching the video linked above and the developer, who worked on X, stated he had to fix bugs in X that were older than him.

Having to maintain someone else's monster can hardly be used to say another person a bad developer. I maintain at least three projects that were created before I started working at my current company and I'm glad no one judges my ability to write code based on code some no formal education self taught C guru programmer hacked together twenty years ago. They did a good job for what they had to work with at the time, knowledge and resources, but I've replaced entire libraries of poorly commented buggy code. Concepts were good, implementation wasn't.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (1)

jbolden (176878) | about 10 months ago | (#46164427)

The people who maintain and adopted the ancient X11 codebase to do as well as it is with modernish GUIs. Yes they are excellent. And certainly they are the best we have.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (5, Interesting)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about 10 months ago | (#46163187)

In my opinion...
Wayland + Systemd + Gnome 3 + kernelspace Dbus = transforming Linux into Windows. Or something more like Windows. They represent a complete rejection of the foundational Unix philosophy [wikipedia.org] .

Regarding Wayland: You clearly have no idea how X works today. Todays X is not like Unix should be at all.
Regarding Dbus: How is a dbus protocol different from semaphores and shm in the kernel?
Regarding systemd, I agree and see it critically, because it is tries to solve everything at the same time. Perhaps the direction of OpenRC is more appropriate. But to criticise systemd you have to understand the issues: A number of links are on http://freedesktop.org/wiki/So... [freedesktop.org] including http://0pointer.de/blog/projec... [0pointer.de]
Regarding Gnome3: Gnome3 is conceptionally little different than Gnome2, KDE or XFCE: Windows and pointers. I actually really like it. If you don't exchange it for something else. Very Unixy.

We have to keep in mind that the system we have today are not mainframes that are booted once and have their daemons running for months.
We have plug-and-play of devices and screens, hibernation, multiple input devices, while at the same time the screen output must not flicker or have delays beyond 50ms. It's a different arena today.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46163621)

The problem with GNOME 3 is that it killed the VASTLY superior GNOME 2.

> I actually really like it.
Then I suggest you get an MRI

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (1)

thunderbird32 (1138071) | about 10 months ago | (#46164147)

Luckily there's MATE for those who mourn the death of GNOME2. I'm an XFCE guy, but I certainly don't hate GNOME3, it's really not that bad.

Then I suggest you get an MRI

That's just like, your opinion, man.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (2)

armanox (826486) | about 10 months ago | (#46163197)

I'm in complete agreement with you. What they're doing is throwing away everything that used to work just to have something they can say they developed in a lot of cases. They're also making a lot of things Linux only, and throwing out compatibility with UNIX and UNIX-like operating systems.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (3, Informative)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 10 months ago | (#46163941)

Let me change a few words around for entertainment purposes :-)

PHB: "I'm in complete agreement with you. What they're doing is throwing away everything that used to work with activeX just to have something they can say they developed in a lot of cases. They're also making a lot of things W3C only, and throwing out compatibility with IE 5 quirks mode and IE 6 browsers."

Sound ludicrous but my point is X is also a bad technology that is dated and a thorn in the Unix ecosystem equally. People fear change sometimes and I can tell you the same Unix nerds screamed when Sun got rid of Inet for their event driven system system which is more modern and appropriate for laptops and modern systems where conditions change.

Have you used Linux 13 years ago? I have and MAN X SUCKS back then and it showed more easily. You do not realize it because you have very fast cpus with gobs of ram. But I remember X taking up just 75% of the ram before I could run any apps.

X is a dumb terminal technology made for greenscreens of the Carter Administration of where you had the VAX the size of a refigerator and everyone had dumb terminals or smart ones with long serial cables to the computer room.

It was not designed for multimedia, OpenGL, low latency, touch screens, low power phones or tablets, or even running a desktop program.

Thats right your code has to run in a server and another copy of itself as a client. Why?? Gnome hides some of this the openGL workarounds are to go to the linux kernel directly with DRM (where does that leave Solaris and FreeBSD users?) to get around that horrible hack of X.

The unix haters manual has an entertaining section on X. The protocol, technology, and API are beyond horrible.

I think Linux lost on the desktop because of X! We would not be fighting for 15 aweful years recreating Guis due to the lack of X working.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (1)

armanox (826486) | about 10 months ago | (#46165591)

Have you used Linux 13 years ago? I have and MAN X SUCKS back then and it showed more easily. You do not realize it because you have very fast cpus with gobs of ram. But I remember X taking up just 75% of the ram before I could run any apps.

Yes, I ran Linux that long ago. Red Hat 6.1 on a Pentium 1 with 48MB RAM and a 1GB HDD. Ran at least as well as Windows 95 on that box.

It was not designed for multimedia, OpenGL, low latency, touch screens, low power phones or tablets, or even running a desktop program.

Funny, IRIX seemed to handle OpenGL and multimedia fantastically. And guess what? It's running X11 on what's now really old hardware (my Octane has a single 300MHz MIPS processor, with 1GB of RAM. My O2 (also with IRIX 6.5) had a 180MHz MIPS processor, 64MB RAM, and also handled OpenGL without hiccup. Ran Photoshop rather nicely too).

Thats right your code has to run in a server and another copy of itself as a client. Why?? Gnome hides some of this the openGL workarounds are to go to the linux kernel directly with DRM (where does that leave Solaris and FreeBSD users?) to get around that horrible hack of X.

It creates issues for Solaris and BSD running newer versions of GNOME. If you check Solaris 11 ships with GNOME 2.30 still, despite 3.x having been around for a while when Solaris 11 was put together. GNOME 3 can be built on FreeBSD, but it is not supported, nor is it considered stable. I hear that OpenBSD managed to get GNOME 3 working though, haven't looked into how they pulled that off. One user even said it's working on non-Intel platforms (they were on PPC).

I think Linux lost on the desktop because of X! We would not be fighting for 15 aweful years recreating Guis due to the lack of X working.

I think Linux lost on the desktop due to politics, not due to X. The community is too busy fighting with itself (X.org vs XFree86, GNOME 3, X11 vs Wayland vs Mir) to care about what the users want, or what the administrators want.

We didn't have years of recreating GUIs because of X not working. We had KDE because CDE was closed source, GNOME because some people didn't like the dual license QT was under, updates to GNOME and KDE (Both saw a lot of change in 2.x, KDE 3.x was fantastic, 4.x started to bloat too much; GNOME's greatest evolution was over the course of 2.x, 3.0 sucked as bad as KDE 4.0), and a lot of arguments that boiled down to 'we're just going to do what we want'

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46164069)

eXACTLY. fUCK sYSTEM d.

Notice how they try to force systemd and friends onto all users of distros.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46165051)

Interesting, in what way does Wayland violate the Unix philosophy?

I always thought it was trying to bring modern display in line with the Unix philosophy. X does way too much, and it does it all so poorly that it is bypassed.

I believe for example X can handle printing, but nobody does that, it can handle drawing objects, but does it so poorly it's bypassed, it can be a remote display, but only in a specific case does it do it well.

All Wayland wants to do is create surfaces to draw on (as I understand it), this seems far more Unixy to me.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (2)

mexsudo (2905137) | about 10 months ago | (#46163085)

I guess the effort is strictly to make things easier to fix and modify, that is good. I am now a Mate user, after I was kinda forced to drop Gnome2, which I understand was also a real bear to maintain. Wayland website says "Wayland is intended as a simpler replacement for X, easier to develop and maintain." ... maybe the Gnome people know something about that, but they sure don't understand how to relate to their client base.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (0)

jbolden (176878) | about 10 months ago | (#46163125)

Here are 30k foot views.

X11 has been around 30 years. It has tons of legacy code and a huge range of functionalities. However its primary use cases are not the ones most popular today so people are often having to drive square pegs in round holes it to do what they want. Wayland is a modern display system for Unixes which is similar to what Windows and OSX use. It can run X11 on top (just like they can) but overtime it will allow people to write applications (or more particularly GUIs) easily with the kind of video performance one gets with Windows or OSX. There is some controversy regarding Wayland because like any reprioritization some stuff is getting worse so as to make other stuff better.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (2)

0123456 (636235) | about 10 months ago | (#46163213)

Wayland is a modern display system for Unixes which is similar to what Windows and OSX use.

So instead of an antiquated, creaky old display system similar to thirty year old Unix code, it's a modern, sophisticated display system similar to thirty year old Windows code?

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (2)

jbolden (176878) | about 10 months ago | (#46164205)

Windows display system was reinvented with Vista (Aero interface). It isn't 30 years old.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 10 months ago | (#46165945)

Wayland is a modern display system for Unixes which is similar to what Windows and OSX use.

Bollocks. It sucks. It only supports textures and more textures. Does it support vector graphics like Quartz? No. Its a throwback to systems predating X that's what it is.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46163137)

These are main differences:
X11: Old, blur (network transparent), uncool
Wayland: New, shiny (network opaque), cool.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46164635)

X11: Old, blur (not network transparent), uncool, ugly fonts, vsync is broken, no hybrid graphic support, all apps can work like keyloggers, No high pixel density support, has a print server, Broke unix philosophy.

Wayland: new, shiny, cool, unix like

fix that for you

How X/Wayland work (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46163403)

X is an application that runs on a computer with a graphics card. A graphical application can then use the X libraries to send drawing commands over the network to an X server, eg "draw a line", "draw a box", "display this bitmap", "display this string in font zzz". Note that the concept of "client" and "server" are somewhat reversed from the normal meaning - the X "server" runs on your desktop, the client can run somewhere in a datacenter. Think about apps processing major datasets and then generating some output...makes sense then for the "client" to be on the larger computer.

The X "server" also controls keyboard/mouse/etc, sending events to the relevant client apps.

The problem with X is that the whole design no longer matches what client apps want to do - eg interact with 3d-capable GPUs, use exactly the fonts they want (rather than asking the X server to use the font with a specific name, and hoping the server has that font available). And the network layer inbetween adds latency. And the set of commands that X supports is now so large that the server is huge - making it buggy, full of security holes, and difficult to maintain.

Wayland is basically the lowest-level parts of X (handling the graphics card), plus a very simple API for clients - it accepts bitmaps only, no "draw a line" stuff. And no network support - clients are local only. Client apps can then code directly against the Wayland APIs (ie pass it bitmaps, often generated by interacting directly with a GPU to render 3d graphics into a buffer). Fast, simple. Or clients can code against the original X API, in which case the drawing commands are sent across the network as they always were, and then are handled by a slimmed-down X-server which executes the commands and passes the resulting buffer to the local wayland server.

In practice of course, most apps will code to the GTK or QT apis, and it is GTK/QT which is responsible for interacting with Wayland or X.

There is also code in development to create a "wayland network protocol" where clients can generate images (on whatever computer they are running on - which might have a GPU), and then send the (compressed) image over the network to another wayland server where the user actually sits and sees the graphics. This is a kind of "RDP remote desktop" mode - and according to many people will actually out-perform the old X way of doing things, as well as being vastly simpler to implement/maintain.

Re:How X/Wayland work (2)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about 10 months ago | (#46163779)

I noticed the AC comment was modded as overrated, but the post seems to provide lots of back story and reasoning for why some people are working toward Wayland adoption as well as some draw backs of Wayland.

It didn't seem to contain any flamebait or troll comments so is the post untrue or does it contain untrue statements? or is this just a case of a bad moderation?

Re:How X/Wayland work (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 10 months ago | (#46164865)

It didn't seem to contain any flamebait or troll comments so is the post untrue or does it contain untrue statements? or is this just a case of a bad moderation?

Probably this part, which is pretty much nonsense. X has never been used this way.

Note that the concept of "client" and "server" are somewhat reversed from the normal meaning - the X "server" runs on your desktop, the client can run somewhere in a datacenter. Think about apps processing major datasets and then generating some output...makes sense then for the "client" to be on the larger computer.

Re: How X/Wayland work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46165053)

That is exactly the classical use case for X. Any time you do an ssh -X somewhere and run an app and it shows up on your local desktop, that's exactly what's happening. So, you're wrong, OP is right.

Re:How X/Wayland work (2)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about 10 months ago | (#46165153)

Note that the concept of "client" and "server" are somewhat reversed from the normal meaning - the X "server" runs on your desktop, the client can run somewhere in a datacenter. Think about apps processing major datasets and then generating some output...makes sense then for the "client" to be on the larger computer.

Is how the developer in the linked youtube video above pretty much says it works.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (4, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | about 10 months ago | (#46163755)

X11 used to be a *lot* of things, but long story short it's now mostly a go-between your applications (that render themselves), the compositor (which put the windows together to a screen) and the framebuffer (where you put the screen to make it show on your monitor). And the parts that aren't totally gone, is provided by klugded-on extensions to avoid breaking the core protocol. Wayland basically drops all legacy functionality and backwards-compatibility and consolidates modern X into a new protocol, last I checked in less than 10% of the code and those parts work much simpler and faster.

Now X has network transparancy and Wayland does not, but not the way it's currently used. It's like saying HTML is network transparent but the way most people use it is like this: <html><body><img src="here_is_the_real_content.png"></body></html>. The other big question has been client or server side decorations, who draws the window frames/titles/buttons. The default implementation (Weston) leaves it to the client, but the protocol lets the server do it and KWin does. It's better because a frozen client doesn't stop them from rendering, but at the cost of pulling some form of drawing toolkit into the display server.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (0)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 10 months ago | (#46164097)

Basically it's a rewrite/redesign of X11, made by people who think that you can deal with the problems that come up in any tried and tested piece of code that, inevitably for any older code, has become "unclean", by writing a new version.

Pretty much anyone who's over the age of 30 who's been involved in software development for any substantial period of time knows that Wayland isn't going to solve it, and that in five years it'll be just as hacky and ugly as X11 is perceived to be - with the added bonus that it won't be anything like as powerful (because by design it won't - I'm serious, they're removing most of X11's core feature set, including the network transparency.)

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (1)

Iskender (1040286) | about 10 months ago | (#46165077)

Pretty much anyone who's over the age of 30 who's been involved in software development for any substantial period of time knows that Wayland isn't going to solve it, and that in five years it'll be just as hacky and ugly as X11 is perceived to be - with the added bonus that it won't be anything like as powerful (because by design it won't - I'm serious, they're removing most of X11's core feature set, including the network transparency.)

I think they've realised something that a lot of X11 proponents haven't: that a one-size-fits-all solution won't work anymore.

I'm a desktop Linux user. I am not a sysadmin, and never will be. I have not used network transparency and likely never will.

I use fullscreen video daily, on the other hand. It has tearing. Switching from Ubuntu on a good desktop to Windows on a sucky netbook feels like an improvement video-wise, and that's not how it should be.

The people who have the most to lose from a switch to Wayland are the same people that have the power to choose their own display server. The ones who can't make the switch manually are the same people who will gain from it, on the other hand.

Looking at things from my perspective, I'm glad people are working on a better desktop experience. If anyone wonders why they're ignoring your network transparency...well, that's what a lot of people are doing about better video. There are two camps, and neither has a solution that works for both.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (1)

boolithium (1030728) | about 10 months ago | (#46165501)

I would say it is more likely to fracture GTK/QT. We all take for granted that we can jump between widget sets right now, because X handles the primitive drawing. Wayland will only draw bitmaps directly to the framebuffer, which means it will rely on the code running on the client. I can see a big problem down the road, when people realize that gtk and qt are duplicating processes, which used to be singular in X. Worse yet, these processes will be implemented differently in each library. That isn't a problem if you don't need to support both qt and gtk, but I can't think of a time in my usage, where I didn't need to run a qt app in gnome or a gtk app in kde.

Re:I'm sorry I'm an idiot (2)

boolithium (1030728) | about 10 months ago | (#46165293)

To understand Wayland, you have to understand X. An X server is a program(s) running as root, which coordinates all of the aspects of a GUI interface. This includes all of the drawing and updating to the display modules in the kernel. X also managed input devices like the mouse and keyboard. However, X is not the window manager or the widget set. X simply listens to the client, and draws what it is told to. Thing like Gnome or KDE actually handle what is to be drawn, and then interface with X. If you think about that for a moment, you can see the silliness inherent in this design. The client is doing all the layout, and then having to go through a middleman. Wayland basically says, if the client is doing the work, then let them handle all of the drawing and such. Wayland only manages the communication between the clients (windows usually) and the kernel modules. This allows programs quicker access to the framebuffer. I think the best analogy would be the back when linux moved to udev instead of devfs. Instead of having an abstraction layer all clients had to query, a kernel module was added which clients could access directly.

Maybe they could delay them more? (1)

Improv (2467) | about 10 months ago | (#46162897)

Say, forever? MATE with Xorg is much more suitable than either Gnome or Wayland.

I wouldn't worry much. (2)

FreonTrip (694097) | about 10 months ago | (#46163017)

X11's far more than mature by now. You can expect ongoing support in various capacities for decades - it's just that widespread.

Re:Maybe they could delay them more? (5, Informative)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 10 months ago | (#46163023)

Say, forever? MATE with Xorg is much more suitable than either Gnome or Wayland.

Ummm, even MATE is planning on switching to Wayland, so evidently the developers of MATE would disagree with you.

Re:Maybe they could delay them more? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46164057)

Wayland isn't bad as library, but the composers aren't there yet, maybe kwin and e19 will reach the proper featureset soon.

Re:Maybe they could delay them more? (1)

bobbuck (675253) | about 10 months ago | (#46163541)

What is MATE? (Yes, I realize it might be a sore subject on Slashdot.)

What MATE is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46165139)

A GNOME 2 fork meant to keep it alive after the GNOME developers abandoned it to work on the new version. Same old junk, new name, for people who for some reason don't want to move on.

Re:Maybe they could delay them more? (1)

Patch86 (1465427) | about 10 months ago | (#46165169)

(Presuming that's a genuine question, and I'm not somehow wooshing myself).

MATE is a fork for the Gnome 2 shell, which maintains a simple desktop style of the classic variety. It is usually associated with the distro Mint. Competes on similar territory to XFCE, although I don't think they have an explicit "for lighter hardware" mandate in the same way as XFCE does.

Not to be confused with Cinnamon, which is a fork of the Gnome 3 shell which attempts to recreate a classic Gnome 2 style desktop, and is also usually associated with Mint.

Another reason Wayland is irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46162981)

If gnome wants to stay relevant it should support X as well.

Beta fix 8.1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46163131)

Show the entire summary, instead of a "read more" link, in the weak beta site and it will suddenly become more viewer friendly. This needs to be fixed NOW. Why are pictures necessary, taking up space, just because other sites post pretty pictures?

On Wayland.. (3, Interesting)

Junta (36770) | about 10 months ago | (#46163259)

Like many people, my chief concern over Wayland is 'network transparency. Unlike some others, I'm willing to believe there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

Specifically, with X based systems, X remoting is no longer the way I use X remotely, I use xpra as it delivers me a better experience. Unlike something like NX, Xpra does not try to extend or enhance X based protocols, but instead gets content by setting itself as the compositor, knowing things like window relationships to each other and being able to do things like recognizing a tray icon for what it is.

My question is if the same sort of thing would be possible with Wayland today and if people are doing it.

I am entirely amateur hour at this and may have mischaracterized, but I'm willing to hold out hope that the one major fundamental downside of Wayland could be overcome in the same way that Xpra makes X better.

Re:On Wayland.. (2)

jbolden (176878) | about 10 months ago | (#46163439)

Wayland has something like Windows RDP working as their remote solution. They are throwing out "network transparency" in exchange for "easy and fast remote operation".

Re:On Wayland.. (1)

MareLooke (1003332) | about 10 months ago | (#46163517)

I don't want to run my *desktop* over a network, that's horribly clumsy compared to pulling over only select applications.

Having had to deal with the entire RDP/VLC crap only made me like X11's way of doing things more.

Re:On Wayland.. (3, Interesting)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 10 months ago | (#46164021)

X11 is remote by default whether you like it or not.

To get an app to work on X you need a server and client component and it emulates running on a freaking network with high latency. Does that sound like a great architecture to you? Great for dumb terminals and smart terminals in which the system was made for in the 1980s.

Gnome hides this by default but under the scenes just to get opengl to work it uses hacks with DRM opengl in the server and it tries not to talk to X for the actual view. So in essence X sees a black box and a hack shows you the code. That is just one horrible work around that X does. It is not adequate and there is nothing to fear with change.

There is a reason Android does not use X.

Re:On Wayland.. (1)

jbolden (176878) | about 10 months ago | (#46164137)

RDP allows you to run applications over a network. It does precisely what you are talking about. I think you are confused since you are comparing it to VLC.

Re:On Wayland.. (1)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | about 10 months ago | (#46164659)

VNC can also forward individual applications, though I can't comment on how well it works. For an example see v11vnc with the "-appshare" option. I tend to use xpra for that myself, even on LANs.

The API which Wayland exposes to client applications should make this sort of thing much easier to implement. (Clients aren't expected to know how they're layed out on the screen; they just send surfaces to the compositor, so the compositor knows exactly which images to compress and forward.)

Re:On Wayland.. (1)

Uecker (1842596) | about 10 months ago | (#46164089)

Easier than 'ssh -X'. I dont think so.

I am not sure that replacing X with a proprietary Microsoft extension of an ITU standard is a great idea. If you think, RDP offers a good experience, feel free to use it. But my experience with open source RDP clients was always horrible. My experience with X over network is excellent. I use it everyday over LAN and WAN.

Also there is the issue of compatibility. Even if I wanted to (and I don't - because I don't see any technical reason) switching of X would break compatibilty with old and new applications. This would be a nightmare.

Re:On Wayland.. (2)

jbolden (176878) | about 10 months ago | (#46164195)

I don't know about open source RDP clients but Windows clients work pretty well. It seems to be an all around very good solution with a few problems (like printing) which I'd assume the Wayland guys will have preflagged for them and thus not make the same mistake.

As far as easier than ssh -x. Absolutely. The network has no idea about the properties of the ssh internals and thus can't optimize anything. You are going to get the worst network performance possible, more or less, given your configuration. As far as X over a WAN, obviously there are latency and security problems. If you want to see what other people need to deal with, introduce some extra latency into your configuration and try it.

Finally in terms of old applications, Wayland like OSX or Windows will run an X11 server on top of itself. X11 applications run fine in Wayland, it is the reverse that's going to prove problematic.

Re:On Wayland.. (1)

Uecker (1842596) | about 10 months ago | (#46164927)

Well, last time I tried to connect to a Windows machine using RDP the client (actually all I tried which I think were all distributed with Ubuntu) crashed because of some unsupported authentication mode or something. Previously, I had other kinds of problems. Maybe the situation is better on Windows. But before threatening to replace X with RDP, I think we should have at least one RDP client which works well.

And anyway, RDP is not an argument for Wayland anyway, because you can use it with X as well - if you like it. This is in general the main problem I have with Wayland: There are NO real advantages - except getting rid of some old code, but only if you break compatibility (otherwise, it simply lives elsewhere). You could achieve everything Wayland does also by extending X without breaking compatibility.

And compatibility goes both ways. Wayland application will not work on X. This is bad. It breaks the ecosytem for no good reason. But also compatibility with X applications will suffer from being an optional compatibility hack. The Jolla phone already ships without X. Another incompatible system!

Easyness. You are talking about performance instead. I know that X can suck when you have low latency connection - but this depends on the application. This is not really a fundamental problem of the X protocol and could be fixed by not using synchronous requests with Xlib.

X over WAN. You use it over ssh or ipsec. Then there is no security problem.

Finally, I am not saying you should not use Wayland if it is better for you. But I am told that I will have to stop using X in the near future while I think it is better for me. You see the difference? I don't care what you use. But I don't want to be switched over by default with my next upgrade. If Wayland is better, offer it as an alternative which people can switch to if they want to try it. If nobody uses X anymore because everybody voted for Wayland by switching, then you can make it the default. So please distributions, freedesktop, gnome and KDE people, please stop breaking my GUI by forcing random changes onto me with every upgrade. This is the Microsoft way - not the free software way.

Re:On Wayland.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46165807)

Well, last time I tried to connect to a Windows machine using RDP the client (actually all I tried which I think were all distributed with Ubuntu) crashed because of some unsupported authentication mode or something. Previously, I had other kinds of problems.

That sounds like in part it is an issue with the server side. If you had people writing both a client and server working together, it seems like there would be better support of what is needed. Maybe your other problems would have been more relevant.

Re:On Wayland.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46164779)

Networking should be done in the toolkit level anyway. GTK and QT should be the part that serialise the UI and send it over the network.

ssh-gtk user@host:/path/to/gtk/appliation

This should be enough to bring that application to your local display. ssh-gtk do the local gtk call from the piped ssh session. On the remote end, the gtk application is run with env BACKEND=pipe. There you go. Network transparency done correctly. It is secure, encrypted, compressed and fast because all rendering is done locally and only user interface construct and relevant event are transferred.

Re:On Wayland.. (1)

Uecker (1842596) | about 10 months ago | (#46165111)

And everytime you upgrade the toolkit on one end it breaks? You need a standardized protocol which has a stable core and is also flexible and can be extended in the future.Then you have reinvented X.

Re:On Wayland.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46164843)

Nothing stop you from running a X server on top of Wayland. You also lose nothing by doing do. Splitting the frame bufferer back-end (wayland) from the networking protocol (x11) is only sane. Why do you cringe to your monolithic x11 server? View Wayland as a X11 video driver and shut up.

Re:On Wayland.. (1)

Uecker (1842596) | about 10 months ago | (#46165081)

I don't care if the X server is monolithic or not. But this is not what the discussion is about. Wayland is not supposed to be only a backend for X.

The other thing which I really love about Wayland is how friendly its fanboys are ;-)

Re:On Wayland.. (1)

raxx7 (205260) | about 10 months ago | (#46163895)

Yes, it's possible. All you need is to implement a compositor which is actually a Xpra-like server.

And yes, it's been worked on. Support to have Weston (Wayland reference compositor) work as a RDP server has been merged.
Not sure if it supports rootless (applications only, no desktop) already or it's rooted (full desktop). But RDP does allow for rootless.

Good grief!!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46163393)

Good grief!!! Is this crap still going???

Re:Good grief!!! (1)

EmperorArthur (1113223) | about 10 months ago | (#46163875)

Good grief!!! Is this crap still going???

That's the danger of not RTFMing. Or in this case watching the video posted in the comments.

The short answer is "X11 IS NOT NETWORK TRANSPARENT. It's network capable, there's a difference."

X11's "network capability" is something like a per window VNC connection. The typical answer from Wayland devs, who used to be X11 devs, is to just use VNC.

They can delay Gnome3 as much as they want (1)

aws910 (671068) | about 10 months ago | (#46163891)

The transition from Gnome2 to Gnome3 was an awful one for me. I bet there was a meeting somewhere that went like this...

Designer 1: Gnome2 is way too simple! Look at this Windows 8 - they totally outdid the rest of the world!

Designer 2: Yes, and look at this OSX - girls love it!

Dev: Totally! Let's re-do all the menus/toolbars, and then we'll make it the new default on (insert list of gnome3 distros here). Everyone will love it from day one, and nobody will experience any loss of productivity! It will be a great resume builder for us as well.

All: Yay!

...Yes, I'm bitter. Yes, I've moved all my machines to XFCE (MATE looks useful, but less mature/stable ATM). If I wanted a confusing UI with limited customization, I would just use OSX. The fact that anyone willingly uses Gnome3 bewilders me. IMHO, they should have done this: continue to keep Gnome2 as "Gnome", fork the code, and call Gnome3 something different (KDE8-X or something).

Re:They can delay Gnome3 as much as they want (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46164959)

I agree. Gnome 3 is like "Windows tl;dr: the final version". I couldn't give less of a shit. I care so little that I'm even more interested in Wayland's release plans than Gnome's. gtfo my /. you irrelevant little peons. Go jack off in the corner with that hideous doll you made. twm is actually _more usable_ than your garbage. Everyone should realize by now Gnome doesn't get a seat at the adults' table.

dates don't match up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46163991)

Why am I the only one confused?

They say delay 3/13 release date a week to align with a 4/1 release of Wayland. But that is more than two weeks, so what exactly is getting aligned? Even if it were the same day, they would have no time to address any problems that arise.

What am I missing?

X Files (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46164093)

X is a decent windows environment, but does have a few noticeable holes. Wayland could be the holy grail, with an emphasis on _could_.

Do people even use Gnome any more? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46164341)

I know I don't.

vapid idiots are running the store. (0)

markhahn (122033) | about 10 months ago | (#46165343)

the big problem is that all this desktop crap doesn't matter. oh, sure, it's pretty. does it get work done? compared to, say, OLVWM from ages ago. sure, I think wiggly windows are a cool hack, and like to use a GPU to make things smoother. but most of this desktop stuff is just masturbation-by-coding. dbus, systemd, wayland, most of gnome, any form of skinning, etc.

yes, X-over-ssh is non-negotiable. it would be great if the X-now-wayland wankers did their wanking on some more-async, lower-bandwidth interface that didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. VNC, I think not. Xcb was about the last good idea to come from these people...

pretty soon desktops will be completely irrelevant, since the only GUI of the future is html*.

Re:vapid idiots are running the store. (1)

Microlith (54737) | about 10 months ago | (#46165955)

And by "vapid idiots" you mean "people who don't think like me."

the big problem is that all this desktop crap doesn't matter.

Not for you, perhaps.

X-over-ssh is non-negotiable.

And any applications you have that use X11 will continue to work. It's hideously inefficient for anything using a recent toolkit, but it'll work.

it would be great if the X-now-wayland wankers did their wanking on some more-async, lower-bandwidth interface that didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Well considering that they can capture the per-app buffers, compress them, and stream them over the network only on update (without polling), I'm sure that a wayland-derived remote system will easily be more efficient than X11 and VNC. Tunneled over SSH, of course.

PUT IT BACK SLASHDOT LOOKS LIKE A SHIT TIER BLOG N (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46165353)

I liked my slashdot nostalgia, put it back

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?