4 ms·
>Is it a fact that X is "smaller" than Wayland, and more resource efficient? This statement doesn't really make sense. Wayland is just a protocol, and you can
by emersion 8y ago
>Is it a fact that X is "smaller" than Wayland, and more resource efficient?
This statement doesn't really make sense. Wayland is just a protocol, and you can build bloated compositors on top of it -- just like you can build really tiny compositors [1]. xorg-xserver on the other hand will always have the same level of "bloat".
>X was designed with far more ambitious goals than Wayland
This is hard to say. Wayland has been designed to be flexible enough to allow for a clean base that can be used in mobile UIs, IVIs (e.g. plane UIs), VR and so on (without hacks).
[1]: https://gist.github.com/SirCmpwn/ae4d1cdcca97ffeb2c35f0878d75dc17 https://gist.github.com/SirCmpwn/ae4d1cdcca97ffeb2c35f0878d7...
- dunpeal 8y ago> Wayland is just a protocol If we're splitting hairs here: X (i.e. the X11 Window System) is also "just a protocol".
- emersion 8y agoSure, but then it's quite difficult to say that one is "more resource efficient" than the other. Only implementations can be compared. And in fact, when you e.g. open Gedit, hundreds of messages are exchanged on X11 (getting/registering atoms, changing window properties, etc). Wayland is much more efficient in that regard.
- dunpeal 8y ago> Wayland is much more efficient in that regard. Which is what I implied in my original comment... Of course, the resources are ultimately consumed by implementations, not protocols. But it helps when the protocols are efficient.