dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
2670
grunze510
join:2009-02-14
Cote Saint-Luc, QC

grunze510 to howardfine

Member

to howardfine

Re: Wayland 1.0 Officially Released

said by howardfine:

But they didn't break the web in the process. Wayland breaks compatibility.

Doesn't Wayland have a compatibility layer for X? Also, I don't think distros would pick it up as default until it's ready even though it reached 1.0 . Not to mention that we've hardly seen any info on Wayland for a while, so I don't think it'll get used for a while. Give it time.
GraysonPeddi
Grayson Peddie
join:2010-06-28
Tallahassee, FL
Ubiquiti EdgeRouter PoE
Ubiquiti UniFi AP-AC

1 recommendation

GraysonPeddi to Cabal

Member

to Cabal
Wayland is a very controversial subject to talk about it and it always don't end, do they?

»www.h-online.com/open/ne ··· 638.html

tld
join:2002-12-19

tld to howardfine

Member

to howardfine
said by howardfine:

said by Maxo:

The X network protocol is quite expensive making it mostly useless over the Internet.

As one who uses it every time I'm on the road, I argue that's not true. More importantly, X can do it. Wayland cannot.

Agreed. I do this all the time on both my LAN and over the Internet. The great thing about it is that it allows you to run graphical programs on headless machines that aren't even running X themselves. I do this with my MythTV backend all the time. I'd miss it for sure.

markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium Member
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA

markofmayhem

Premium Member

said by tld:

said by howardfine:

said by Maxo:

The X network protocol is quite expensive making it mostly useless over the Internet.

As one who uses it every time I'm on the road, I argue that's not true. More importantly, X can do it. Wayland cannot.

I'd miss it for sure.

No you wouldn't miss it... it isn't going anywhere!

Wayland does not replace X, it replaces the display module of the X server that communicates between client and compositor. Pictures above for those having trouble reading that sentence over the last 2 years.
GraysonPeddi
Grayson Peddie
join:2010-06-28
Tallahassee, FL

GraysonPeddi to tld

Member

to tld
What pictures are you referring to?

(Thought I'm replying to markofmayhem but it mentioned "tld." Whoops.)

markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium Member
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA

markofmayhem

Premium Member

said by GraysonPeddi:

What pictures are you referring to?

(Thought I'm replying to markofmayhem but it mentioned "tld." Whoops.)

Yours.

This may help as well, it has pictures and a video:
»vignatti.wordpress.com/2 ··· wayland/

And this, which explains nicely how Wayland is designed to be alongside X, not replacing it; it also dives into the "Intel only" problem (no pics or vids, sorry):
»arstechnica.com/informat ··· wayland/
markofmayhem

markofmayhem to TuxRaiderPen2

Premium Member

to TuxRaiderPen2
said by TuxRaiderPen2:

said by KodiacZiller:
Except X sucks where security is concerned.
So if you need a new lock on your house... you build a whole new house?

Wayland is a new lock and paint on the front door. Why should Wayland have to defend itself from the stupidity of those who see a different colored door and claim it is a whole new house?

BUZZZZ!!! DING DING DING, lack of wisdom on the topic warning!

TuxRaiderPen2
Make America Great Again
join:2009-09-19

TuxRaiderPen2 to grunze510

Member

to grunze510
said by grunze510:
Doesn't Wayland have a compatibility layer for X? Also, I don't think distros would pick it up as default until it's ready even though it reached 1.0 . Not to mention that we've hardly seen any info on Wayland for a while, so I don't think it'll get used for a while.
Another layer to be broken, setup, bugs...etc... just more hassles for users and more problems that wouldn't exist to start.

No thanks.

X, please.
said by grunze510:
Give it time.
No thanks. I've rejected it to start. No need for it.
TuxRaiderPen2

TuxRaiderPen2 to Maxo

Member

to Maxo
said by Maxo:
Often time, in software development, it is easier to rebuild a system than it is to continue patching it.
Again, I've said if you want to rebuild X to be X Super Edition, great I am all for it... BUT I WANT X, not waynonsense ALL 100% of X, and that includes XDMCP, you may not use it but several on this thread do, and all the buzz word cloud computing does...

And no hokey add on layers to cause more problems and troubleshoot...

You still have to be compatible with your previous system , and if your not your asking for trouble in most cases.
said by Maxo:
Google hoped to get Firefox in a good state to enable the type of rapid development they wanted to see in browsers. Eventually they realized it was easier to build a new browser from scratch than it would be to get Firefox's codebase in proper order. That's why we have Chrome/Chromium.
Wrong programs to mention to me, I despise and find neither useful.

google only needed to change things due to their eating at the ECMAscript buffet and using bleeding edge code that browsers may not be as current on... I only use Konqueror and if you lie to google it everything works quite nicely using the KHTML engine. So google knock of your BS with the messages, I don't care! I know what your up to and its worse than ms and their games with a browser !
said by Maxo:
At work we are doing the same thing. We've rebuilt our ordering, inventory, billing, and invoicing systems from scratch. Sometimes a new project that can work alongside the existing project is the best way forward.
Did some thing with same sort of items as well, but it didn't break the current system nor did it require any changes to software. And this is really not the same thing... these systems are not systems that other programs rely on to put their interface on the screen etc.. X is a key part of that.. In other words you don't break it to move forward.

This really is just going to push Linux backwards after decades of progress this could entirely erradicate it one fell swoop.

No thanks. KDE based on X, only please.

More solutions looking for problems...again.
GraysonPeddi
Grayson Peddie
join:2010-06-28
Tallahassee, FL

2 edits

GraysonPeddi

Member

--retracted--

howardfine
join:2002-08-09
Saint Louis, MO

howardfine

Member

I wouldn't be talking like that when, by your question, you show you haven't been following along and don't know all the issues.

TuxRaiderPen2
Make America Great Again
join:2009-09-19

TuxRaiderPen2 to GraysonPeddi

Member

to GraysonPeddi
said by GraysonPeddi:
How can Wayland be so controversial? What is the problem here in the forum?
If you have to ask that question...well.....