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.
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.
I just saw this comment by a NVidia developer in the NVidia forums:
(emphasis mine)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:
If anybody could elaborate on that please do so.
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.
Would like to know this as well...
Are we talking qubits or hex when we say 2?