Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 12th Nov 2010 22:35 UTC, submitted by Debjit
Fedora Core Well, what do we have here? It turns out that Ubuntu isn't the only Linux distribution who took a left turn off the highway, now driving on a road that will eventually lead to replacing with Wayland. Fedora's 'graphics cabal', as they call themselves, have explained themselves on Fedora's devel mailing list. They also explain how network transparency can be added to Wayland in a number of different ways, making the mailing list thread intriguing reading material. Also, everybody happy with the headline? No panties in twists this time around...?
Thread beginning with comment 449873
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Not shocking
by OpenGLCoder on Sat 13th Nov 2010 14:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Not shocking"
Member since:

"X can do exactly what any "modern" windowing system found in Windows and Mac, and more." --> Please define X in this case. Xorg server? XFree86? X is a protocol (API) for displaying clients, not a desktop technology. If X was a desktop technology, one would figure it would have a hard time sharing the same space as Mac OS X desktop and Windows Desktop through Gygwin.

In addition, "X" - I'll define it for you... Xorg server... can do most things that Windows and Mac OS X can do through a handful of extensions that may or may not be loaded which is impossible to bet on when programming a desktop environment - like KDE and Gnome. I applaud the FOSS community for taking Xorg as far as they can.

The last time I looked, DRI wasn't really intended to be a part of "X" proper. *extension... might be there... if you're lucky.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Not shocking
by tylerdurden on Sat 13th Nov 2010 23:21 in reply to "RE[5]: Not shocking"
tylerdurden Member since:

Gee wiz, given the context of this article... obviously I must have been talking about X running DecWindows on a VAX.

As of today, X refers mainly to for the desktop windowing system side of things. Given that most non x86 unix workstations have gone the way of the dodo.

GDE and KDE are exactly what it is wrong with the FOSS approach: two ways of doing the same thing, which have taken twice as long reinventing the wheel to achieve basically the same result.

People who focus on the warts of are completely missing that big picture. Reinventing the windowing system/technology if it is going to lead to another multitude of different ways of doing the exact same thing, is going to put them exactly where they began. Again.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Not shocking
by OpenGLCoder on Sun 14th Nov 2010 02:30 in reply to "RE[6]: Not shocking"
OpenGLCoder Member since:

I wasn't referring to what platform by requesting "Please define X?", I was referring to what X as in what layer... X proper the spec? X with DRI extension? Xorg the server? XFree86 the server, etc.?

I agree in the sense that GDE and KDE are competing and reinventing the wheel. There is so much potential there if they weren't writing 2 calculators, 2 notepads, etc.

I think Wayland is different in the sense that the Vista/7 DWM is different as opposed to XP's windowing system while still supporting XP-coded clients. It's a successor, not a competitor.

I think that if Wayland succeeds, Xorg will be considered old hat on GNU/Linux systems. Maybe not additional *NIX that have different kernel capabilities, but certainly on Linux.

What say you?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Not shocking
by TheGZeus on Sun 14th Nov 2010 07:34 in reply to "RE[6]: Not shocking"
TheGZeus Member since:

Without a canonical 'fallback' standard toolkit, I kind of agree...

I think Qt4 is a better library (more capable, flexible, fast) but uses a touch more memory that I'd like.
GTK(2(+)) just makes me sigh... Like GNOME, it seems like a bunch of disparate elements munged together.

Frankly, I think computing needs to go tabula rasa on the whole OS deal...
Everything's Unix-like on some philosophical level now. (W7 is the least Unix-like of the big OSen, but compare it with the structure XP/98!) but we still have to port/maintain everything over and over...

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I have a very vague idea....

Reply Parent Score: 2