Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 60

Thread: Two Features Wayland Will Have That X Doesn't

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bac0n View Post
    Why want open source drivers not match proprietary driver... eventually?
    Because the proprietary drivers have better teams (better programmers and more of them) developing them. Open source driver performance has not been improving at a respectable rate. It's not like the proprietary graphics drivers won't also improve, and the open source drivers aren't improving faster than the proprietary ones.

    The real problem with graphics on Linux is that no one that matters cares. If Red Hat's, Novell's, Oracle's, HP's, etc. business depended on great open source Linux graphics drivers, then Wayland and associated drivers would have a really good chance. However, it's not a priority. How many man-hours do you think have been spent on the Nvidia or AMD graphics stack? Both of those companies claim that the super-majority of their code is shared between Windows and Linux. I'd say that they've spent $100M on the development.
    I just can't believe that G3D/Mesa will get any reasonable amount of development time.
    A project like this simply can't be done as a volunteer project. It's too complicated to attract casual developers and insignificant to attract major business investment.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,268

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bac0n View Post
    Why want(sic) open source drivers not match proprietary driver... eventually?
    It's probably because of lack of manpower, but the open-source drivers should eventually have 60-70% of the proprietary driver performance.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    985

    Default

    X is a very complex beast, I don't think there are many people out there who have a full understanding of it. What I'm hoping and thinking Wayland will bring is.

    • A simplified architecture without all the legacy stuff allowing more people to understand it and contribute to it, and reduced risk that modifications will break legacy stuff and god knows what.
    • No more need for ddx, means less duplication of code, all hardware specific code in Gallium driver and drm. Development effort concentrated on Gallium driver.
    • No more need for exa, all 2D optimizations concentrated in cairo library with the gl backend, hopefully making it easier to bring better 2D performance with Firefox etc.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    99

    Default

    I just saw this comment by a NVidia developer in the NVidia forums:

    One thing worth noting is that beside the small footprint the Wayland display server may have at this time and the relatively early stages of development it is in, there are architectural limitations to its design that present problems for features that are taken for granted today.

    Although it is quite old now, a good part of the discussion of using X-on-OpenGL vs. X.Org for composited desktops in Andy Ritger's presentation for the 2006 X developers' conference applies to Wayland, as well:

    http://download.nvidia.com/developer...-framework.pdf
    (emphasis mine)

    If anybody could elaborate on that please do so.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by allquixotic View Post
    I don't think any open source 3d stack will be able to come even remotely close to the performance of the proprietary drivers, so unless Wayland is thinking of supporting an alternate rendering path not based on KMS and GEM (the KMS symbols are GPL'ed and therefore cannot legally be used by Nvidia/ATI binary drivers no matter how badly they want to use them), there will be no meaningful gaming on Wayland. Maybe the best of the best open source drivers may be able to run a native port of OpenArena to Wayland in 2015. But something with actual fragment shaders? Forget it.
    There is a misunderstanding here, wayland doesn't strictly need KMS/GEM. Wayland can easily use some others interface to setup video mode and to share buffer. What wayland needs is an EGL driver and modesetting capabilities without X, then if the EGL implementation has the EGL image extension it all should work properly ie all you need is to change bit of wayland that is not exposed to its client to work on somethings else than KMS.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Wayland doesn't have the Window resizing hell, which is highly noticable. I know nVidia is out tofix this in X.org with sync fences, but only God knows what kind of performance hell this will turn into.

    Wayland will rock because it is essentialy new X.org tech without the legacy code. Read that again.

    Also I use Linux because of the FLOSS, otherwise I would run Windows 7/Mac OS X 10.6. Why would I use a sub optimal FLOSS computer with an optimal graphics binary? There are other reasons than ideology to use FLOSS. Mine is curiosity and choice.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeiF View Post
    I just saw this comment by a NVidia developer in the NVidia forums:

    (emphasis mine)

    If anybody could elaborate on that please do so.
    this

    anybody know what the Nvidia guy means???

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Would like to know this as well...

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Israel, Tel-Avil
    Posts
    73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kuse View Post
    There are two kinds of people in the world, pessimist's and optimist's
    You mean 10 kinds? ... sorry couldn’t resist.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Are we talking qubits or hex when we say 2?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •