Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34

Thread: Wayland-Based Chromium Browser Released

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Brasil
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoronix View Post
    Fedora and Ubuntu binaries are currently available...
    What about Gentoo ebuilds? I didn't find even an overlay...

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    Quite a milestone i might add.


    Come on Firefox people.
    Firefox to Wayland bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635134

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intellivision View Post
    Yet they have been consitently releasing a browser that uses far less memory than Chrome ever since v21, they also push for open internet standards such as ASM.js rather than NIH solutions such as NaCl, so I wouldn't be sayng that they have a 'mentality from the 90's'.
    Firefox can do a lot quickly on issues they care about, but linux integration has never been one of those. Anyone expecting quick Wayland support from Firefox needs to lower their expectations.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    38

    Default

    I wonder when Google will make the switch to Wayland on Chrome OS. My guess is sometime in 2014, but I suppose it depends on if they can get drivers working for all existing Chrome OS devices.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    Firefox can do a lot quickly on issues they care about, but linux integration has never been one of those. Anyone expecting quick Wayland support from Firefox needs to lower their expectations.
    Looking at the blocker bugs to the Firefox bug to add wayland support it looks like performance concerns seem to be holding back some of the work to switching to using Cario over Xrender.

    See: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=738937

    Aside from that looks like there has already been a bit of work done towards replacing GLX with EGL see: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=788319

    So basically things are moving slowly but there seems to be no real push to get Firefox working on Wayland.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    65

    Default And suddenly...

    Wayland is a workable alternative for probably 80% of the typical users day-to-day work

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    360

    Default

    I’m curious about the amount of work needed to port an application to use Wayland. A team at Intel needed 2 months to partially port Chromium which already had an abstraction layer…

    Also I never remember what problems Wayland is supposed to fix. I went to their web site to read some doc two days ago but nothing sticked in my mind.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stqn View Post
    I’m curious about the amount of work needed to port an application to use Wayland. A team at Intel needed 2 months to partially port Chromium which already had an abstraction layer…

    Also I never remember what problems Wayland is supposed to fix. I went to their web site to read some doc two days ago but nothing sticked in my mind.
    well, a team can have many responsibilities ... I also have some (rather small) "pet" features in the pipeline here at work which started a month ago but got burried under other work because of other priorities (and eg. get 3-4 hours a week tops). As for advantages, the biggest one imo is simply that all the legacy x11 features which are no longer used by real-world apps are gone which leads to a way smaller codebase (which has thus - statistically speaking - less bugs). Jeah, the architecture is nice and has some nifty features (tear-free rendering as an example), but I dont worry about that so much as about a huge-ass piece of code that has dubious quality (I remember reading about some x.org releases not even compiling) and runs in kernel-mode at the same time.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stqn View Post
    I’m curious about the amount of work needed to port an application to use Wayland. A team at Intel needed 2 months to partially port Chromium which already had an abstraction layer…

    Also I never remember what problems Wayland is supposed to fix. I went to their web site to read some doc two days ago but nothing sticked in my mind.
    Maybe the web browser is not properly the most correct example, because it touches one of that particular case where subsurfaces are needed.
    Other than that, there is an additional difficulty in case the browser's toolkit has not been ported yet (I don't remember if chromium uses gtk+ 2 or what).
    I guess that, excepts for video player (maybe another subsurfaces case), the porting effort from X to Wayland should't be so hard.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stqn View Post
    I’m curious about the amount of work needed to port an application to use Wayland. A team at Intel needed 2 months to partially port Chromium which already had an abstraction layer…

    Also I never remember what problems Wayland is supposed to fix. I went to their web site to read some doc two days ago but nothing sticked in my mind.
    Wayland mostly helps on the developer side, and actually mostly the system or graphic stack developer side.
    For the end user, that means nothing new per se, but possibly more things or better quality things in general (in the future. right now, you'll have as much things, but buggier, until the technology gets fully mature).

    For example, the wayland back-end for the R-Pi uses the GPU's hardware compositor, with an incredible boost in performance. That's something that cannot be done with X.
    It is this kind of little things.

Posting Permissions

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