Linked by the_randymon on Wed 9th Jan 2013 00:48 UTC
X11, Window Managers Lead developer for Compiz, Sam Spilsbury, says he sees little need to develop Compiz for Wayland due to the increasing fragmentation of the Linux ecosystem. Spilsbury writes "What does compiz actually provide to users of these systems? [...] None of this functionality that user wants really depends on our compositing engine. There's nothing so special about our compositing engine that gives it a reason to exist [...] This is the real practical toll of fragmentation amongst the Linux ecosystem. It's not just that there are multiple implementations of the wheel. There are multiple implementations of entire cars which do almost the same thing, but a little different from everyone else. Some say this is the free software's greatest strength. Now that I know the personal and technical toll of fragmentation, I see it as its greatest weakness."
Thread beginning with comment 547903
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
What an utter non-sense
by toast88 on Wed 9th Jan 2013 10:32 UTC
toast88
Member since:
2009-09-23

This is the real practical toll of fragmentation amongst the Linux ecosystem. It's not just that there are multiple implementations of the wheel.


Someone who makes this comparison in this context has absolutely zero idea why Wayland was written in the first place and how it differentiates from X11.

Wayland is a complete NEW design, porting Compiz to X11 would not only mean a lot work but it's also completely pointless. Wayland itself is designed already to be compositing right from the start. And for people who still haven't grasped the concept: compositing has NOTHING to do with 3D animations and wobbly windows, but it is required to generate these effects.

Compositing is an alternative, better concept to draw windows on a screen as compared to the old, stacking window managers. MacOS uses compositing since 2001 (first release of MacOS X) and Windows since Vista (with the new WDDM display driver model).Compositing simply means that every content is rendered off-screen first, then the window manager composes the desktop (as opposed to stacking window managers which lets application directly draw on the desktop).

Everyone who still thinks that X11 is a good concept that should be persued in the future, should have a look at these pages:

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

http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/unix-haters/x-windows/disaster.html

Adrian

Edited 2013-01-09 10:34 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE: What an utter non-sense
by nej_simon on Wed 9th Jan 2013 13:08 in reply to "What an utter non-sense"
nej_simon Member since:
2011-02-11

Did you read the article?

"This is the real practical toll of fragmentation amongst the Linux ecosystem. It's not just that there are multiple implementations of the wheel.


Someone who makes this comparison in this context has absolutely zero idea why Wayland was written in the first place and how it differentiates from X11.

Wayland is a complete NEW design, porting Compiz to X11 would not only mean a lot work but it's also completely pointless.
"

That was his point..

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: What an utter non-sense
by toast88 on Wed 9th Jan 2013 13:35 in reply to "RE: What an utter non-sense"
toast88 Member since:
2009-09-23

That was his point..


It doesn't matter. X11 is going to be abandoned in the future. It's 25-year-old, crufty old code no one really understands in full anymore.

It will be superceded by Wayland + XWayland. There is no fragmentation simply because in the future, Linux will be Wayland-only like MacOS is Quartz-only.

Ubuntu is going to enable Wayland for 13.04.

Adrian

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: What an utter non-sense
by renox on Wed 9th Jan 2013 13:08 in reply to "What an utter non-sense"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

Someone who makes this comparison in this context has absolutely zero idea why Wayland was written in the first place and how it differentiates from X11.

Wayland is a complete NEW design

Not really, as Wayland is very similar to X11's DRI2 extension (which was also made by KH).

As for your "Wayland is better than X" message, this depends on the situation, for network transparency Wayland will use more bandwith than X (not a big issue since you can use X with XWayland).

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: What an utter non-sense
by toast88 on Wed 9th Jan 2013 14:10 in reply to "RE: What an utter non-sense"
toast88 Member since:
2009-09-23

As for your "Wayland is better than X" message, this depends on the situation, for network transparency Wayland will use more bandwith than X (not a big issue since you can use X with XWayland).


Correct. Wayland will work - more or less - exactly like Quartz on MacOS X. To run X11 applications, you start XWayland while you run XQuartz on MacOS X.

Cheers,

Adrian

Edited 2013-01-09 14:10 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: What an utter non-sense
by dsmogor on Wed 9th Jan 2013 14:32 in reply to "RE: What an utter non-sense"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

X11 already sucks as a network display (being extremely intolerant to latency), so it's not a big loss.

If the need is strong somebody will surely come up with acceptable (and better than X11) network display tech for Wayland.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: What an utter non-sense
by Delgarde on Wed 9th Jan 2013 21:34 in reply to "RE: What an utter non-sense"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

As for your "Wayland is better than X" message, this depends on the situation, for network transparency Wayland will use more bandwith than X (not a big issue since you can use X with XWayland).


Not sure how you can make that claim, given that Wayland currently has no support whatsoever for network transparency, and no plans beyond "do something at the compositor level".

Reply Parent Score: 2