Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 45

Thread: The First Wayland Benchmarks From Fedora 20 Show Great Promise

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    Looking good for Wayland. I know someone who's going to wear a monkey suit...

    (no, I'm not talking about Shuttleworth, you silly gooses)

    Anyway, I'm probably going to have to install Fedora 20 on my test machine when it's released.
    How nice! A fellow LAS fan.

    On-topic:
    I almost get goosebumps when I think about how close we are to a X-less desktop. Unfortunately I'll probably have to leave Xfce for GNOME. Let's hope Classic works.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xeekei View Post
    How nice! A fellow LAS fan.

    On-topic:
    I almost get goosebumps when I think about how close we are to a X-less desktop. Unfortunately I'll probably have to leave Xfce for GNOME. Let's hope Classic works.
    Depends on how much effort the XFCE devs put into porting to GTK3

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    704

    Default

    You don't need Intel hardware for the Wayland Tech Preview:

    https://plus.google.com/100767727489...ts/41KMBwqQ6tV

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xeekei View Post
    How nice! A fellow LAS fan.

    On-topic:
    I almost get goosebumps when I think about how close we are to a X-less desktop.
    Very much this. It was only a few years ago that so many thought X was going to be IT for linux for the forseeable future. That Wayland was going to be another Y. That we are at the point we are is due to the elegance of Kristian's vision for how clients and display servers should communicate.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    Depends on how much effort the XFCE devs put into porting to GTK3
    I don't want to be a party pooper, but porting to GTK3 alone won't magically make XFCE work on Wayland, as some parts (namely, xfwm4) talk directly to X11.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xeekei View Post
    How nice! A fellow LAS fan.

    On-topic:
    I almost get goosebumps when I think about how close we are to a X-less desktop. Unfortunately I'll probably have to leave Xfce for GNOME. Let's hope Classic works.
    Gnome Classic functions okay, but compared to the speed and responsiveness of Xfce it's got nothing.
    Wayland is still over two years away from being production ready anyway, there aren't any EGL blobs for it yet so performance will be limited and it's technically supported by only two compositors, Mutter and Weston. All others are simply forks of the aforementioned two or are largely incomplete.
    You're better off sticking with X11 until these issues have been addressed.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrugiero View Post
    I don't want to be a party pooper, but porting to GTK3 alone won't magically make XFCE work on Wayland, as some parts (namely, xfwm4) talk directly to X11.
    True, but this whole thing (changing window systems) has been a lesson for every involved. Abstraction. Abstraction. Abstraction. X11 was around for what? Almost 30years? Its not surprising that people just assumed it'd be around for awhile and wrote directly against X. But now we've learned that things change, things DO change, and we need to change with them.

    And while I get that you can't help but sometimes right directly against the window system (obviously, for something that low level you will have to) but the lesson then is that FOR the low level stuff, don't tie ENTIRELY to THAT window system. Make it be a 'backend' system so that its maintainable in the future and you can just pop in a new backend if you need to.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    True, but this whole thing (changing window systems) has been a lesson for every involved. Abstraction. Abstraction. Abstraction. X11 was around for what? Almost 30years? Its not surprising that people just assumed it'd be around for awhile and wrote directly against X. But now we've learned that things change, things DO change, and we need to change with them.

    And while I get that you can't help but sometimes right directly against the window system (obviously, for something that low level you will have to) but the lesson then is that FOR the low level stuff, don't tie ENTIRELY to THAT window system. Make it be a 'backend' system so that its maintainable in the future and you can just pop in a new backend if you need to.
    Abstraction also means bigger overhead, so as long as there is a single option for a long time, the abstraction should, IMO, be avoided. You will lose less time porting than the time all this overhead will sum up.
    I'm not against abstracting against OSes, since there will always be several options, but windowing systems for *NIX OSes? There is usually one at a time that actually gets used, with the exception of the Apple world having it's own Quartz. But if you are there, you probably like their GUIs already and don't want to switch.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Truly hilarious reading the whining of people discussing performance of a compositing engine, etc., that doesn't have 30 years of kruft under it, but only a few years from concept to inception.

    In 18 months 90% of the community will be dumping Xorg and using Wayland/Weston.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrugiero View Post
    Abstraction also means bigger overhead, so as long as there is a single option for a long time, the abstraction should, IMO, be avoided. You will lose less time porting than the time all this overhead will sum up.
    I'm not against abstracting against OSes, since there will always be several options, but windowing systems for *NIX OSes? There is usually one at a time that actually gets used, with the exception of the Apple world having it's own Quartz. But if you are there, you probably like their GUIs already and don't want to switch.
    Depends on how much overhead you mean. Displays can only display SO much so if the overhead means the display can push at max 295fps, instead of 300fps, I don't see a problem there. Especially since most displays will cap at 60fps, and gaming displays cap around 120fps. I get your point about overhead, and we should look to find ways to minimize said overhead, but enough abstraction as necessary to provide multiple backends is likely a good idea

Posting Permissions

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