Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 12th Feb 2012 23:23 UTC
Gnome "One of the things that the GNOME design crew have been focusing on recently is creating a new approach to application design for GNOME 3. We want GNOME applications to be thoroughly modern, and we want them to be attractive and a delight to use. That means that we have to do application design differently to how we've done it in the past."
Thread beginning with comment 506927
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
mcpatnaik
Member since:
2011-09-02

I really don't dislike Wayland. It skips one of my use-cases, That is remote desktop. I have been using remote rendering of X since long and with satisfaction. If tomorrow OpenSUSE defaults exclusively to Wayland (That's our pet distro) or KDE switches to it, I am in serious trouble if remoting code does not come to Wayland before the switch.
See Wayland faq http://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html

Is Wayland network transparent / does it support remote rendering?

No, that is outside the scope of Wayland.

My point of view is that every software project repeats a design cycle. But to adopt a new strategy even before you finish the previous goal is not professional. Goals for an iteration should be complete before you switch on to a new structure. Just don't leave users midway because you got a fancy for a new architecture.
Porting is really painful. Many good apps get lost in the switch. We don't have an army of developers fed by big money and directed by corporate vision. In OSS world we create software for ourselves. The end user is just like a family member. Let's think from his point of view. Backward compatibility is a necessary evil. If devs switch to every new and promising architecture and the old falls out of the ecosystem eventually, the community is at a loss. It is a social responsibility.

New technology and re-engineering doesn't always means that the end result will be less stable, or that the system will be "unstable". Quite the contrary, specially when it comes to software development and new developments.

Not every new architecture brings robustness immediately. Search tracker-store and nepomuk using 100% cpu in google. Let's also see the bug status of popular projects (Libreoffice, KDE, Gnome). It needs a lot of time and testing to build robustness. What happens to the user till such time? he is left with a plethora of half baked software in the name of choice. will anyone care?

Reply Parent Score: 3

tuma324 Member since:
2010-04-09

I really don't dislike Wayland. It skips one of my use-cases, That is remote desktop. I have been using remote rendering of X since long and with satisfaction. If tomorrow OpenSUSE defaults exclusively to Wayland (That's our pet distro) or KDE switches to it, I am in serious trouble if remoting code does not come to Wayland before the switch.
See Wayland faq http://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html
"Is Wayland network transparent / does it support remote rendering?

No, that is outside the scope of Wayland.

My point of view is that every software project repeats a design cycle. But to adopt a new strategy even before you finish the previous goal is not professional. Goals for an iteration should be complete before you switch on to a new structure. Just don't leave users midway because you got a fancy for a new architecture.
Porting is really painful. Many good apps get lost in the switch. We don't have an army of developers fed by big money and directed by corporate vision. In OSS world we create software for ourselves. The end user is just like a family member. Let's think from his point of view. Backward compatibility is a necessary evil. If devs switch to every new and promising architecture and the old falls out of the ecosystem eventually, the community is at a loss. It is a social responsibility.

New technology and re-engineering doesn't always means that the end result will be less stable, or that the system will be "unstable". Quite the contrary, specially when it comes to software development and new developments.

Not every new architecture brings robustness immediately. Search tracker-store and nepomuk using 100% cpu in google. Let's also see the bug status of popular projects (Libreoffice, KDE, Gnome). It needs a lot of time and testing to build robustness. What happens to the user till such time? he is left with a plethora of half baked software in the name of choice. will anyone care?
"

Wayland is just a protocol, why add networking to such a good protocol that is trying to keep itself simple, why make the protocol bloated and an unmaintainable mess like X11?

Wayland is trying to follow the UNIX philosophy of "Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together.".

But that doesn't mean that Wayland will kill network transparency, network transparency will be part of another layer, it will be part of the compositors, toolkits, or we can just use X11 on top of Wayland.

Having network transparency as another layer also benefits the users and developers. It benefits the user because if you don't want network transparency you can just choose to disable that layer on your system. And if you want it, enable it. This is also very good for security.

It also benefits the community and developers because it will result on a system that is easier to maintain, it will give us modularity, competition, elegance, KISS/UNIX philosophy, among other things.

Don't worry about it. Nobody will remove any functionality, things are just improving.

From the Wayland FAQ:


Is Wayland network transparent / does it support remote rendering?

No, that is outside the scope of Wayland. To support remote rendering you need to define a rendering API, which is something I've been very careful to avoid doing. The reason Wayland is so simple and feasible at all is that I'm sidestepping this big task and pushing it to the clients. It's an interesting challenge, a very big task and it's hard to get right, but essentially orthogonal to what Wayland tries to achieve.

This doesn't mean that remote rendering won't be possible with Wayland, it just means that you will have to put a remote rendering server on top of Wayland. One such server could be the X.org server, but other options include an RDP server, a VNC server or somebody could even invent their own new remote rendering model. Which is a feature when you think about it; layering X.org on top of Wayland has very little overhead, but the other types of remote rendering servers no longer requires X.org, and experimenting with new protocols is easier.

It is also possible to put a remoting protocol into a wayland compositor, either a standalone remoting compositor or as a part of a full desktop compositor. This will let us forward native Wayland applications. The standalone compositor could let you log into a server and run an application back on your desktop. Building the forwarding into the desktop compositor could let you export or share a window on the fly with a remote wayland compositor, for example, a friend's desktop.


http://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html

Edited 2012-02-13 21:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

mcpatnaik Member since:
2011-09-02

Why your focus is just Wayland? not other software?

Currently the situation about wayland is quite nascent. The X may be a mess, but is also quite usable. Wayland will remove a lot of bloat out of X (no proxying). The majority should not run remoting code on their personal system. It is good logic and we welcome it. Still it can't replace X in its current specifications(specs will take a lot of time to be complete). X11 is java's focus still, not Wayland.
For remote X you are limited to do a RDP style remoting. What about people who use remote X today? If we are looking at a stable and complete Wayland with X on top for remoting, am I looking at a future approx 3~4 years? Till that time I have to be with X. My worry is that the current X may fall out of maintenance if the focus of development goes to "Beyond X"
[[http://www.osnews.com/story/25608/Wayland_beyond_X]]
[[http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Wayland-Beyond-X-1432046.html]]
Wayland toolkit page says frankly, it is a work in progress.
[[http://wayland.freedesktop.org/toolkits.html]]
The KDE Wayland strategy presentation is here.
[[http://community.kde.org/images.community/0/01/KWin_Wayland.pdf]]

The question comes : Was Microsoft always right? investing in RDP, Metro, Aero, .net and we follow head-fast ditching our working software for Wayland, New Gnome app framework, Plasma(not an exact counterpart though), mono.

Reply Parent Score: 2