Will Wayland Become A New Desktop Standard?

[zester]

I'd do this to have only one IPC protocol, which already has nice features for access control.
BEEP looks nice, but as far as I understand it doesn't specify marshaling formats.

XML, XDL and (IDL - Vortex will detects and coverts IDL to XDL) marshalling all data, and unmarshall all replies received.

If your system is available over the network then it can be rooted (even if in theory).

Sure in theory. AES-256 can be cracked in theory doesn't mean we will ever see it happen in our life time. And AES isn't
even the strongest there are others that are stronger and in the public domain.

[Cyberax]

XML, XDL and (IDL - Vortex will detects and coverts IDL to XDL) marshalling all data, and unmarshall all replies received.

Sorry, that disqualifies it then. XML is too slow for fast IPC (it's fine for service descriptions, but too heavy for IPC payloads).

Sure in theory. AES-256 can be cracked in theory doesn't mean we will ever see it happen in our life time.

There were remote exploits in the TCP stack. Are you sure that there aren't any still present? Or had you turned off TCP as well?

[zester]

I'd do this to have only one IPC protocol, which already has nice features for access control.
BEEP looks nice, but as far as I understand it doesn't specify marshaling formats.

XML, XDL and (IDL - Vortex will detects and coverts IDL to XDL) marshalling all data, and unmarshall all replies received.

If your system is available over the network then it can be rooted (even if in theory).

Sure in theory. Any type of security measure can be broken, but that doesn't mean it has or is common like the OP made it out to be.

[zester]

Maybe I should have refrazed those responses.

1. You wouldn't want an IPC framework in Wayland because Wayland was mean't to be as abstract as
possible. So that it will scale properly in the future. And you wouldn't wan't to tie all toolkits to a dbus
dependence. They might wan't to implement there own IPC framework.

2. Rootkit's on Linux are possible but not all that common. You see them mostly on servers that are using outdated software.

The Linux kernel actually has mechanisms to protect against rootkit's.
And if a Linux user implements proper security (Read only Partitions, ACL, Real-time Disk Encryption, Strong Passwords, Proper Network Port Management ,Keeping your System Updated with the latest Security Fixes) Then yes chances that your Linux box will be rooted are unlikely.

Note: That is considered entry level security there are much more advanced bare-metal ways to protect a Linux box but there considered out of scope for your average Linux user.

[zester]

Sorry, that disqualifies it then. XML is too slow for fast IPC (it's fine for service descriptions, but too heavy for IPC payloads).

DBUS uses XML all over the place. Besides Vortex uses libaxl for XML it's 14% faster that libxml

It has XML-IPC (An inter-process communication protocol built upon file pipes and
the methodCall and methodResponse encodings of XML-RPC.)

Not to mention non-blocking parallel communication

And for the IDL to XDL it uses a protocol compiler.

Stop acting like you know what your talking about.

[deanjo]

And if a Linux user implements proper security (Read only Partitions, ACL, Real-time Disk Encryption, Strong Passwords, Proper Network Port Management ,Keeping your System Updated with the latest Security Fixes) Then yes chances that your Linux box will be rooted are unlikely.

Same could be said about all the mainstream OS's, a system is only as secure as the competency of the person hardening the system.

[kraftman]

Same could be said about all the mainstream OS's, a system is only as secure as the competency of the person hardening the system.

Not exactly. Windows is insecure by design. It doesn't even ask for password in most (any?) cases.

[AlbertP]

I thought this thread was about Wayland.

For me, it doesn't really matter if the X server is re-written or replaced, as long as it works without problems. The developers have decided to make a new display server instead of patching the almost 25 year old X. I think they've made a good decision, they know the inside of X better than the average forum member who just uses X and does not worry about what happens inside.

X is becoming a mess of old and new code. There are for example 3+ ways to get dual-screen which aren't compatible with each other.

[Yaro]

No, I'd rather they overhaul the X standard into X12 than see something as immature as Wayland take over.

Wayland makes the mistake of requiring KMS instead of merely supporting it as a bonus, assuring none of the best drivers Linux has will support it all that well, if at all. KMS and OpenGL aren't mutually exclusive, but you'll be hard put to find any driver with complete KMS and accelerated OpenGL support.

I'm being tactful. Here's me being blunt: Such drivers do not yet exist.

Sure, there's some somewhat DECENT support for accelerated OpenGL in a good deal of the open source drivers. Complete? No. Enough to fully support, say, KWin's compositing? No.

I like the ideas of Wayland wants. Pixel perfect frames every time sounds very idealistic, but likely hard to achieve with good performance with the state of the current drivers available for Linux that still support KMS. If they simply had KMS support optional like X did we'd actually have something to talk about.

But, in all honesty, why reinvent the wheel when you can improve the wheel we have and save some effort and keep some compatibility? Let's not switch to Wayland, instead, lets take what we learned from it and implement it in a new X standard: X12.

In X12 we'd rid ourselves of the cruft that started building up over the all-too-long run of X11, add in a lot of the concepts and design of Wayland, while still allowing things like low-level hardware support and network transparency to work. Ultimately, X12 should do what X11 doesn't in addressing the needs and designs of the modern desktop.

[Cyberax]

What makes you think that Wayland is not X11 with accumulated experience?

Server-side rendering is an evolutionary dead end. It's needlessly complex and not needed at all for modern mobile devices. So Wayland is the future.