Ubuntu Allegedly To Have Its Own X, Wayland Alternative

[Akka]

There are android phones that can output a different screen than that of the phone. My moto atrix from the top of my head, so may not be impossible.

But from your answer another question arises, can canonical extend android's DS enough that it would also work well in the desktop form factor?

My point is: Canonical is faced with a choice: They can follow intel and the other GNU distros and adopt wayland, relying on Intel and community to further develop it, also requiring porting of the desktop GPU blobs to this DS supported only by GNU distros and also of the apps/toolkits. Or, they can follow google and adopt android/chromeOS DS and instantly gain support for ARM SoCs drivers, which would require convincing AMD and nvidia to port their blobs to android/chrome OS, the porting of the apps and toolkits and rely on google to further develop the DS.

Neither is painless, but I can understand canonical if they choose to stand closer to a google/linux instead of GNU/linux. Google has already taken linux where no other GNU/linux distro has ever gone: consumer devices. By "borrowing" hardware support from android/chromeOS, ubuntu can deliver a better user experience and has a higher chance of convincing an OEM to ship a product with it.

Maybe wayland is technically better, but that is meaningless if it only performs well in a very strict number of devices.

Why don't port their desktop to android instead. As I understand it, this is was firefox did with firefox os.

[smitty3268]

As far as I can see, no real new "features" are actually planned, and Windows 7 & 8 continue to have far more advanced display servers.

Can you explain this? What features does the Win7 display server have that Wayland will be missing? It seems to me like Wayland is actually cribbing a lot of stuff from the Win7 design.

[johnc]

Can you explain this? What features does the Win7 display server have that Wayland will be missing? It seems to me like Wayland is actually cribbing a lot of stuff from the Win7 design.

If these features are planned for Wayland, it should definitely be communicated, because it'd be nice if...

1) You could install / update a video driver without having to reboot and without having to close out your applications and log out.
2) You could simultaneously run multiple GPUs from different vendors and have an extended desktop across the outputs.

These sorts of things would make me more interested in Wayland, since I don't think we'll see them in X.org any time soon.

[Ericg]

If these features are planned for Wayland, it should definitely be communicated, because it'd be nice if...

1) You could install / update a video driver without having to reboot and without having to close out your applications and log out.
2) You could simultaneously run multiple GPUs from different vendors and have an extended desktop across the outputs.

These sorts of things would make me more interested in Wayland, since I don't think we'll see them in X.org any time soon.

1) is a problem of kernel-space vs userspace drivers. Thats not an X problem, thats a "General design of the linux graphics stack" problems. User-space drivers are safer, nicer, and have better stability, but kernel-space drivers have better performance and lower latency. Kernel-space was chosen because the FOSS drivers have limited performance already, therefore we need the most we CAN get.

2) No idea. Isn't that Xinerama? (Wayland does make multi-monitor easier so it very well COULD b e able to do that, but I dont know)

[Nobu]

If these features are planned for Wayland, it should definitely be communicated, because it'd be nice if...

1) You could install / update a video driver without having to reboot and without having to close out your applications and log out.

I'm probably oversimplifying things here, but if there was a way for the graphics kernel module to communicate to user-space that it's been re-loaded (after a crash/lock/upgrade), a global repaint and (or, in the best case, just an) upload to the gpu should be all that's necessary to get things back to the state they were in before the event.

[JanC]

1) Cleaner code,
2) cleaner and more efficient protocol,
3) better support for GPU-switching,
4) better support for full-screen apps (try having a full screen window change the resolution under X, depending on your WM you'll get mixed results)
5) proper screenlocking (under X an app can bypass the screenlock if it really wants to)
6) lightweight enough that it can be used on tablets, phones or desktops.
7) Better multi-monitor support,
8) frame-perfect graphics-- no lagging, tearing or stuttering
9) also fun fact: its relatively future-proof. The wayland protocol really just moves pointers and buffers around to different sections, it lets other programs handle what those buffers contain, how the data got there and things like that. By letting third party handle the major implementation details and just having the protocol as barebones as possible it means if there ever comes a day when we have a big shift in how we do graphics (like X went through) we may not have to throw the protocol out the window or start bypassing it like we did with X, we just change the 3rd party bits to the new architecture./ style and keep plugging away

Of course almost(?) all of those issues could be addressed in X12 if anybody ever got around to start working on it...

(It seems like most people forgot there was X1-10 before X11, and before that there was something called "W" to explore similar features.)

[Akka]

Of course almost(?) all of those issues could be addressed in X12 if anybody ever got around to start working on it...

(It seems like most people forgot there was X1-10 before X11, and before that there was something called "W" to explore similar features.)

As I understanded (something I realy dont now anything about) the video, Wayland is designed to do what they tried to do with xorg the last 10 years. What xorg was supposed todo ended to be the ideal way to do it (and in a explosion of complexity) some years after the birth of linux.So they moved more and more functionality to the clients. Wayland don't has any new way to work. It is designed to do what they in practice did with xorg. The problem what that for xorg it was a abomination to work like that, Wayland is designed to do it.
If the ideal how it should work in Wayland differ from the original ideal of how xorg should work I think a new name is logical.

[F i L]

Of course almost(?) all of those issues could be addressed in X12 if anybody ever got around to start working on it...

(It seems like most people forgot there was X1-10 before X11, and before that there was something called "W" to explore similar features.)

Yeah.. and if X12 did all those things then X12 applications wouldn't be compatible with X11, nor would proprietary X12 drivers.. so you'd have a improved, simplified DS called "X12" which wasn't fully compatible with X11, but could probably host X11 applications... which is exactly what Wayland is. It just isn't called "X12".

[Ericg]

Of course almost(?) all of those issues could be addressed in X12 if anybody ever got around to start working on it...

(It seems like most people forgot there was X1-10 before X11, and before that there was something called "W" to explore similar features.)

Wayland IS X12 ...minus the X. The "X" protocol hasn't been updated since BEFORE X11 since during X11 development they were BREAKING the X-specification in order to make things sane. There's a lot of cruft in the "X" Protocol that would have to get ripped out anyway. So either way they would've had to write a new protocol. THe difference is if you called it "X12" you go in with the preconception of maintaining either the "X style" or the backwards compatibility. By calling it "Wayland" or basically anything EXCEPT "X[1-9[1-9]" They are making it clear that this is a clean breaking point.

You also avoid any political issues that would come up from anyone still using the X protocol wanting to give input on the development.

[curaga]

Yeah.. and if X12 did all those things then X12 applications wouldn't be compatible with X11, nor would proprietary X12 drivers.. so you'd have a improved, simplified DS called "X12" which wasn't fully compatible with X11, but could probably host X11 applications... which is exactly what Wayland is. It just isn't called "X12".

With one very important difference: X12 would have network support for all applications