Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 91

Thread: Wayland Preparing For 1.0 Stable Release

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RahulSundaram View Post
    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.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,038

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    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.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    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?

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,038

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    A reason what won't work?
    What this whole thread was about?
    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    After reading that thread I have a complete lack of confidence in seeing well-implemented network transparency in a Wayland context

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,038

    Default My take on Wayland

    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.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    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.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    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?!

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,038

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    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.
    Last edited by smitty3268; 02-01-2012 at 01:15 AM.

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    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.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    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?
    Where does the mindset come from? How about there doesn't seem to be any serious consideration for network transparency at the design phase? It almost seems like that kind of thing just really isn't that important. Yes, there's a lot of hand-waving, "ohhhhh, welll... you can run X on top of Wayland to run remote apps..." Seriously -- why would I want to do that? Ok, eventually X will be phased out... and then something else will have to be implemented. That "something else" really hasn't been designed yet as far as I can see. I'm sure they'll come up with something. Of course RH will have remote app functionality. Microsoft can check that box too. Maybe we'll end up with something like VNC... wouldn't that be awesome? So will the brunt of the work be done on the server or on the client? Wouldn't it be nice to know some of these things as we're coming upon a "stable release"?

    I understand that X is a turd and it'd be great if it was replaced with something better. I'm sure Wayland will be better. Maybe in practice the benefits won't be obvious to the end-user. But I just said what I feel -- that that thread didn't inspire any confidence in me that network transparency is even in the top thousand (<-- that's hyperbole btw) areas of concern for Wayland devs. Hopefully I'm wrong. We'll just have to cross our fingers, keep our mouths shut, and place our trust in them.

    FUD. This is FUD. Because seriously - no one has the goal of making linux shitty.
    Ok... maybe "goal" was the wrong word, but in practice that is often what we get. We can look to our "Experienced GNOME developers" for evidence of that.

Posting Permissions

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