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 547933
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: What an utter non-sense
by renox on Wed 9th Jan 2013 13:08 UTC 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[3]: What an utter non-sense
by renox on Thu 10th Jan 2013 13:26 in reply to "RE[2]: What an utter non-sense"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

Ideally a remote network replacement should be better than NX, which is already available on top of X11, not just "better than X11".

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

RE[3]: What an utter non-sense
by renox on Thu 10th Jan 2013 13:19 in reply to "RE[2]: What an utter non-sense"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

"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".
"
Easy: the Wayland protocol is based on sending buffers (images) between programs(clients) and the server, so once you're at the 'compositor level' the only thing you can work on are images.
For applications which works mostly with text, sending 'raw' images will use much more bandwidth than X Render's way of rendering (send the glyph once, then send commands to draw text, reusing many times the glyphs).
If is of course possible to compress images to reduce bandwidth but this requires a lot of processing and adds latency..

Reply Parent Score: 3