5 ms·

Why X Is Not Our Ideal Window System (1990) [pdf]

42 points by type0 9y ago

cs702 9y ago
1990! I have yet to come across anyone who thinks X is great... Yet, somehow, despite all its shortcomings, intertwined hairballs, and sedimentary layers of ancient code, X has survived for decades and gradually become widely used in free open-source desktops. I'm typing this on a state-of-the-art (ha-ha) Ubuntu Linux 16.04 desktop running Unity on top of... X. Now we're all hoping Wayland will successfully replace it. Is X another example of "worse is better"? https://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html https://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html
- destructionator 9y ago
  I'm not hoping Wayland will replace it... "Is Wayland network transparent / does it support remote rendering? No" Then it is useless to me. As crappy as X is (and I agree that it sucks pretty hard), at least it works for my use cases.
  - alyandon 9y ago
    Exactly, I can't consider moving off X11 until something akin to x2go/RDP is available.
    - curt15 9y ago
      How about this? https://ctrl.blog/entry/wayland-gnome-remote-desktop https://ctrl.blog/entry/wayland-gnome-remote-desktop
      - alyandon 9y ago
        I'm not that familiar with Vino but VNC isn't really what I'd call usable over high latency networks compared to x2go/nx and Microsoft RDP. If all they've done is port Vino to Wayland in order to enable remotely accessing a Wayland based desktop and they are still using the equivalent of the VNC protocol then that likely won't be performant enough for me. :(
  - cs702 9y ago
    No worries, you will be able to run X on top of Wayland. Quoting from https://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html#heading_toc_j_8 https://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html#heading_toc_j_8 : "This doesn't mean that remote rendering won't be possible with Wayland, it just means that you will have to put a remote rendering server on top of Wayland. One such server could be the X.org server, but other options include an RDP server, a VNC server or somebody could even invent their own new remote rendering model. Which is a feature when you think about it; layering X.org on top of Wayland has very little overhead, but the other types of remote rendering servers no longer requires X.org, and experimenting with new protocols is easier." No, the irony is not lost on me.
    - Spivak 9y ago
      It seems like they don't want people to use X on top of Wayland but are trying to assure people that a distro shipping Wayland wont break their ability to ssh -X.
    - pmoriarty 9y ago
      Can anyone who currently runs X on top of Wayland comment on how ready it is for daily desktop use? If I installed Wayland and ran X on top of it today, would it be as stable and feature-rich as a standalone xorg server?
  - dmm 9y ago
    Modern X's network transparency amounts to sending images over the network. That's something wayland will do equally well.
    - renox 9y ago
      Wrong. X has remote capabilities BY DEFAULT. Wayland will eventually have an option to render remote applications, but as it will be only an option it won't work 'equally well'..
  - moron4hire 9y ago
    VNC and RDP work pretty great without it.
- nix0n 9y ago
  jwz.org has a redirect (based on the referrer header?), here's a better link: https://www.dreamsongs.com/RiseOfWorseIsBetter.html https://www.dreamsongs.com/RiseOfWorseIsBetter.html
- rbanffy 9y ago
  > Is X another example of "worse is better"? Not quite. More like "it works" is better than "it'll be perfect".
  - reacweb 9y ago
    currently, I have 7 putty windows with X11 forward. I regularly use VNC viewer to connect over slow ADSL links. X is the only desktop focused on network. I was told in 1992 that X was 90% network for 10% graphic. As long as the replacement of X does not not understand that network is more important than graphic, I do not see how X could disappear.
    - rbanffy 9y ago
      I notice I use graphical applications over the network less and less. A lot of my work happens over ssh connections and the most graphical stuff is curses based. Last time I used it a GUI app was running a heavy IDE on a beefy machine from a relatively puny laptop. That and working from a really cool vintage RS/6000 box with AIX with everything running off my contemporary Linux box.
- datenwolf 9y ago
  > Is X another example of "worse is better"? It's a prime example of survivorship bias. I.e. all the problems and shortcomings "identified" with X11 apparently have little impact on how well/bad it behaves. But no mistake, there have been numerous attempts to replace X11: Fresco, Y Windows, Pico (IIRC) and so on. If you want to identify what impairs a graphics and windowing system's design you should look at these. And IMHO Wayland, too, since, despite being in development for over 7 years it still didn't manage to find widespread adoption; compare that to X11 for which there existed a thriving ecosystem of software after just half the time. IMHO something is done right by X11. Yes there are a lot of warts in and around it. But don't focus on those. Or do and see how "well" other systems deal with it. One part of X11 that often receives HUGE criticism is the whole HID input infrastructure. Among other things this was one of the main reasons for developing Wayland. And now, years later the whole HID input infrastructure of Wayland is still in its infancy and hardly useable. The developers have practically given up and tell people, "uhh, use libinput", which is hardly a bandaid: There is "some" support for input events in the Wayland protocol. But it's quite narrow, so libinput is now directly accessing /dev/input/… which opens a huge can of worms in how to properly distribute events and assign/revoke user access.
thg 9y ago
I have never seen anything fill up a vacuum so fast and still suck. -- Rob Pike, on X Steve Jobs said two years ago that X is brain-damaged and it will be gone in two years. He was half right. -- Dennis Ritchie Dennis Ritchie is twice as bright as Steve Jobs, and only half wrong. -- Jim Gettys
lunchables 9y ago
So I wonder how many of these issues have been fixed since then?
- ape4 9y ago
  In case you don't know, Wayland is the replacement... https://wayland.freedesktop.org/ https://wayland.freedesktop.org/
  - TremendousJudge 9y ago
    and it only took 27 years!
dsr_ 9y ago
X may be crap, but it's more resilient crap than any other windowing system has proven themselves to be so far.
TremendousJudge 9y ago
What I wonder is who came up with naming the local machine the 'server' and the remote (who runs the software) the 'client'
- mannykannot 9y ago
  It is completely logical: a server manages shared resources (in this case, the displays and input devices of your local machine) so they can be used concurrently by multiple clients (your applications, which are not constrained to be on a single machine.)
- afuchs 9y ago
  I think the logic was that the applications connect to the X display. The X display binds and listens on a port, and then accepts connections from the each applications.
- Spivak 9y ago
  Probably the same people who: - Run a local Emacs server and connect via emacsclient. - Run a local CUPS server and connect with libcups. - Run a local tmux server and connect with multiple clients.
- sophacles 9y ago
  I understand what you're saying, and even the confusion, but from a purely technical point of view, its logical and consistent. With HTTP: a machine runs nginx, which provides resources over http in the form of documents. nginx is a server. With X: a machine runs Xorg, which provides resources over X11 in the form of windows/widgets/etc. Xorg is a server Usually (e.g. almost every protocol) the remote machine is what has the server. In the case of X, it's the local machine. Of course it doesn't help that in jargon (vs techincal speak) server means all of: * a machine we will put in a rack for running server software * a remote machine i communicate with (usually using a protocol that has a server software on the remote machine) * the peice of software listening for requests. Even worse is that to run X programs remotely, theres usuall a local client talking to a remote server, which starts a remote client talking to the local X server. Basically, what I'm saying is: it's perfectly logical and consistent and totally confusing at the same time :) I wonder if we need a new term (since p2p things are more and more confusing the ability to conflate local/remote machine with client/server anyway).
rbanffy 9y ago
X is a great example of good enough software. It is there and does what it should. Any candidate to replace it should, at least, be out there and do what it does.

42 points by type0 9y ago

1990! I have yet to come across anyone who thinks X is great... Yet, somehow, despite all its shortcomings, intertwined hairballs, and sedimentary layers of ancient code, X has survived for decades and gradually become widely used in free open-source desktops. I'm typing this on a state-of-the-art (ha-ha) Ubuntu Linux 16.04 desktop running Unity on top of... X. Now we're all hoping Wayland will successfully replace it. Is X another example of "worse is better"? https://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html https://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html

destructionator 9y ago
I'm not hoping Wayland will replace it... "Is Wayland network transparent / does it support remote rendering? No" Then it is useless to me. As crappy as X is (and I agree that it sucks pretty hard), at least it works for my use cases.
- alyandon 9y ago
  Exactly, I can't consider moving off X11 until something akin to x2go/RDP is available.
  - curt15 9y ago
    How about this? https://ctrl.blog/entry/wayland-gnome-remote-desktop https://ctrl.blog/entry/wayland-gnome-remote-desktop
    - alyandon 9y ago
      I'm not that familiar with Vino but VNC isn't really what I'd call usable over high latency networks compared to x2go/nx and Microsoft RDP. If all they've done is port Vino to Wayland in order to enable remotely accessing a Wayland based desktop and they are still using the equivalent of the VNC protocol then that likely won't be performant enough for me. :(
- cs702 9y ago
  No worries, you will be able to run X on top of Wayland. Quoting from https://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html#heading_toc_j_8 https://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html#heading_toc_j_8 : "This doesn't mean that remote rendering won't be possible with Wayland, it just means that you will have to put a remote rendering server on top of Wayland. One such server could be the X.org server, but other options include an RDP server, a VNC server or somebody could even invent their own new remote rendering model. Which is a feature when you think about it; layering X.org on top of Wayland has very little overhead, but the other types of remote rendering servers no longer requires X.org, and experimenting with new protocols is easier." No, the irony is not lost on me.
  - Spivak 9y ago
    It seems like they don't want people to use X on top of Wayland but are trying to assure people that a distro shipping Wayland wont break their ability to ssh -X.
  - pmoriarty 9y ago
    Can anyone who currently runs X on top of Wayland comment on how ready it is for daily desktop use? If I installed Wayland and ran X on top of it today, would it be as stable and feature-rich as a standalone xorg server?
- dmm 9y ago
  Modern X's network transparency amounts to sending images over the network. That's something wayland will do equally well.
  - renox 9y ago
    Wrong. X has remote capabilities BY DEFAULT. Wayland will eventually have an option to render remote applications, but as it will be only an option it won't work 'equally well'..
- moron4hire 9y ago
  VNC and RDP work pretty great without it.
nix0n 9y ago
jwz.org has a redirect (based on the referrer header?), here's a better link: https://www.dreamsongs.com/RiseOfWorseIsBetter.html https://www.dreamsongs.com/RiseOfWorseIsBetter.html
rbanffy 9y ago
> Is X another example of "worse is better"? Not quite. More like "it works" is better than "it'll be perfect".
- reacweb 9y ago
  currently, I have 7 putty windows with X11 forward. I regularly use VNC viewer to connect over slow ADSL links. X is the only desktop focused on network. I was told in 1992 that X was 90% network for 10% graphic. As long as the replacement of X does not not understand that network is more important than graphic, I do not see how X could disappear.
  - rbanffy 9y ago
    I notice I use graphical applications over the network less and less. A lot of my work happens over ssh connections and the most graphical stuff is curses based. Last time I used it a GUI app was running a heavy IDE on a beefy machine from a relatively puny laptop. That and working from a really cool vintage RS/6000 box with AIX with everything running off my contemporary Linux box.
datenwolf 9y ago
> Is X another example of "worse is better"? It's a prime example of survivorship bias. I.e. all the problems and shortcomings "identified" with X11 apparently have little impact on how well/bad it behaves. But no mistake, there have been numerous attempts to replace X11: Fresco, Y Windows, Pico (IIRC) and so on. If you want to identify what impairs a graphics and windowing system's design you should look at these. And IMHO Wayland, too, since, despite being in development for over 7 years it still didn't manage to find widespread adoption; compare that to X11 for which there existed a thriving ecosystem of software after just half the time. IMHO something is done right by X11. Yes there are a lot of warts in and around it. But don't focus on those. Or do and see how "well" other systems deal with it. One part of X11 that often receives HUGE criticism is the whole HID input infrastructure. Among other things this was one of the main reasons for developing Wayland. And now, years later the whole HID input infrastructure of Wayland is still in its infancy and hardly useable. The developers have practically given up and tell people, "uhh, use libinput", which is hardly a bandaid: There is "some" support for input events in the Wayland protocol. But it's quite narrow, so libinput is now directly accessing /dev/input/… which opens a huge can of worms in how to properly distribute events and assign/revoke user access.

thg 9y ago

I have never seen anything fill up a vacuum so fast and still suck. -- Rob Pike, on X Steve Jobs said two years ago that X is brain-damaged and it will be gone in two years. He was half right. -- Dennis Ritchie Dennis Ritchie is twice as bright as Steve Jobs, and only half wrong. -- Jim Gettys

lunchables 9y ago

So I wonder how many of these issues have been fixed since then?

ape4 9y ago
In case you don't know, Wayland is the replacement... https://wayland.freedesktop.org/ https://wayland.freedesktop.org/
- TremendousJudge 9y ago
  and it only took 27 years!

dsr_ 9y ago

X may be crap, but it's more resilient crap than any other windowing system has proven themselves to be so far.

TremendousJudge 9y ago

What I wonder is who came up with naming the local machine the 'server' and the remote (who runs the software) the 'client'

mannykannot 9y ago
It is completely logical: a server manages shared resources (in this case, the displays and input devices of your local machine) so they can be used concurrently by multiple clients (your applications, which are not constrained to be on a single machine.)
afuchs 9y ago
I think the logic was that the applications connect to the X display. The X display binds and listens on a port, and then accepts connections from the each applications.
Spivak 9y ago
Probably the same people who: - Run a local Emacs server and connect via emacsclient. - Run a local CUPS server and connect with libcups. - Run a local tmux server and connect with multiple clients.
sophacles 9y ago
I understand what you're saying, and even the confusion, but from a purely technical point of view, its logical and consistent. With HTTP: a machine runs nginx, which provides resources over http in the form of documents. nginx is a server. With X: a machine runs Xorg, which provides resources over X11 in the form of windows/widgets/etc. Xorg is a server Usually (e.g. almost every protocol) the remote machine is what has the server. In the case of X, it's the local machine. Of course it doesn't help that in jargon (vs techincal speak) server means all of: * a machine we will put in a rack for running server software * a remote machine i communicate with (usually using a protocol that has a server software on the remote machine) * the peice of software listening for requests. Even worse is that to run X programs remotely, theres usuall a local client talking to a remote server, which starts a remote client talking to the local X server. Basically, what I'm saying is: it's perfectly logical and consistent and totally confusing at the same time :) I wonder if we need a new term (since p2p things are more and more confusing the ability to conflate local/remote machine with client/server anyway).

rbanffy 9y ago

X is a great example of good enough software. It is there and does what it should. Any candidate to replace it should, at least, be out there and do what it does.