Wayland Preparing For 1.0 Stable Release

[RahulSundaram]

After reading that thread I have a complete lack of confidence in seeing well-implemented network transparency in a Wayland context

Don't see why

http://lists.fedoraproject.org/piper...er/145290.html

"The downsides that have been described include:

- We lose network transparency! Well, sure, the protocol doesn't have
that directly. You can still do vnc-like things trivially and with a
modest amount of additional wayland protocol (or just inter-client
conventions) you can do spice-like things. This is good, not bad,
because efficient remoting protocols do not look like X. Now we get to
design a good one, and in the meantime vnc-style remoting sure does go a
long way towards being good enough. (But, we can't switch yet, because
we don't even have vnc-style remoting yet; so we're not switching yet.)"

[johnc]

Don't see why

http://lists.fedoraproject.org/piper...er/145290.html

I read the whole thread. I just don't have any confidence in them. What I saw was "we'll cross that road when we get there" and all I could think of is ending up with the cluster-f we have on Windows.

[smitty3268]

I read the whole thread. I just don't have any confidence in them. What I saw was "we'll cross that road when we get there" and all I could think of is ending up with the cluster-f we have on Windows.

Or in other words, "I think the developers behind this are all stupid and I know better than them". With a hearty helping of FUD.

You can't even come up with a reason it won't work, just "I don't have any confidence in them" and bringing up other unrelated platforms for some reason.

[johnc]

Or in other words, "I think the developers behind this are all stupid and I know better than them". With a hearty helping of FUD.

You can't even come up with a reason it won't work, just "I don't have any confidence in them" and bringing up other unrelated platforms for some reason.

A reason what won't work?

[smitty3268]

A reason what won't work?

What this whole thread was about?

After reading that thread I have a complete lack of confidence in seeing well-implemented network transparency in a Wayland context

[smitty3268]

Experienced X developers: Look at the new shiny Wayland we're creating. It's better than X in every possible way.

Masses: Oh noes - you don't list network transparency as a feature. Doom, Doom, Doom.

Experienced X developers: Right, because that will be taken care of by the layer above. It's much better that way.

Masses: You can't get rid of [implementation detail] "network transparency". Doom!

Experienced X developers: Really, it's trivial. All you have to do is run an alternative compositor on Wayland that would scrape the buffers, compress them, and send them over the network. It's far more flexible than the X system, and also gives better performance. For the moment, we aren't even going to bother with this trivial detail because at the start everyone will be using X apps anyway and it will work the same. It will only matter after several years of use when native apps start being used.

Masses: I don't trust these devs. They're obviously going to screw up network transparency. I'm not sure why, i just think they will. Look at windows, it doesn't have X and it sucks.

[johnc]

What this whole thread was about?

Nobody in that thread was able to provide any sense of clarity about how network transparency is or is not going to exist in a Wayland display context and how it will or will not be different from X. Sure, workarounds were offered, but can you read that thread and say, "Surely we're in good hands here; there is a clear understanding of how network transparency is an important function."

I didn't get the warm fuzzies.

When it's up and mature and if it can do everything X can do, and do it at least as well, and the binary drivers play nice, yeah I'm definitely on board and can't wait to move up. But I hope I'm not asking for too much there. Or perhaps the whole "hey let's deprecate functionality" mentality that has been all the linux rage these days has made me bitter. Because seriously... if the goal is to make linux as shitty as Windows, somebody please let me know so I can switch back now and get a head start.

[johnc]

Experienced X developers: Look at the new shiny Wayland we're creating. It's better than X in every possible way.

Masses: Oh noes - you don't list network transparency as a feature. Doom, Doom, Doom.

Experienced X developers: Right, because that will be taken care of by the layer above. It's much better that way.

Masses: You can't get rid of [implementation detail] "network transparency". Doom!

Experienced X developers: Really, it's trivial. All you have to do is run an alternative compositor on Wayland that would scrape the buffers, compress them, and send them over the network. It's far more flexible than the X system, and also gives better performance. For the moment, we aren't even going to bother with this trivial detail because at the start everyone will be using X apps anyway and it will work the same. It will only matter after several years of use when native apps start being used.

Masses: I don't trust these devs. They're obviously going to screw up network transparency. I'm not sure why, i just think they will. Look at windows, it doesn't have X and it sucks.

Yes, let's come up with a design several years after we start writing code. How could anybody think we'd end up having to hack something in like was done in Windows?!

[smitty3268]

Nobody in that thread was able to provide any sense of clarity about how network transparency is or is not going to exist in a Wayland display context and how it will or will not be different from X. Sure, workarounds were offered, but can you read that thread and say, "Surely we're in good hands here; there is a clear understanding of how network transparency is an important function."

I didn't get the warm fuzzies.

http://lists.fedoraproject.org/piper...er/145309.html

When it's up and mature and if it can do everything X can do, and do it at least as well, and the binary drivers play nice, yeah I'm definitely on board and can't wait to move up. But I hope I'm not asking for too much there.

Define "everything". I suspect you mean it just can do network transparency - there are literally hundreds of deprecated X features that no one uses anymore. The fact that you think this feature is going to disappear honestly baffles me. Where does this mindset come from? Do you think Red Hat is going to start shipping RHEL without the ability to use remote apps like they currently can?

Because seriously... if the goal is to make linux as shitty as Windows, somebody please let me know so I can switch back now and get a head start.

FUD. This is FUD. Because seriously - no one has the goal of making linux shitty.

If you do want to go to an OS that never changes, you should probably look into moving to a Unix flavor. Because other OS's all look to improve over time, and that means throwing away crap. Like X.

[RahulSundaram]

When it's up and mature and if it can do everything X can do, and do it at least as well, and the binary drivers play nice, yeah I'm definitely on board and can't wait to move up. But I hope I'm not asking for too much there. Or perhaps the whole "hey let's deprecate functionality" mentality that has been all the linux rage these days has made me bitter. Because seriously... if the goal is to make linux as shitty as Windows, somebody please let me know so I can switch back now and get a head start.

Sure. If you want to switch, go ahead and do that. There is no point in sticking around if you can't trust the X developers to know what they are talking about. On the other hand, if you to wait, that's great. Nobody is forcing you either. In fact, the thread itself clearly stated several times that Wayland will take time to be adopted. This is why it is explicitly designed to be run in parallel.