3 ms·

"Ditch X server" sounds like they're going to completely abandon X11. However, the Wayland FAQ[1] outlines ways of integrating X11 with Wayland, so I suppose us

by limmeau 16y ago

"Ditch X server" sounds like they're going to completely abandon X11. However, the Wayland FAQ[1] outlines ways of integrating X11 with Wayland, so I suppose users of, say, ddd are not going to suffer much. 1. https://groups.google.com/group/wayland-display-server/web/frequently-askeds-questions https://groups.google.com/group/wayland-display-server/web/f...

Someone 16y ago
If this gains sufficient traction, and if this provides a better-looking way to render stuff on screen, I guess this will lead to applications that talk the superior protocol, not The X protocol. Such applications would not run on X displays. If I interpret things correctly, the link you give explicitly describes such a scenario: Further down the road we run a user session natively under Wayland with clients written for Wayland. There will still (always) be X applications to run, but we now run these under a root-less X server that is itself a client of the Wayland server. This will inject the X windows into the Wayland session as native looking clients. The session Wayland server can run as a nested Wayland server under the system Wayland server described above, maybe even side by side with X sessions. So, the X protocol could still be there for quite some time to support 'old' applications, but new applications wouldn't use it anymore. There are quite a few if's here, though. The first non-Ubuntu application to drop X support could face quite an uphill battle.
- xorglorb 16y ago
  So essentially it would be like Apple's X11. It will be there for backwards compatibility with older applications, but it will be considered "undesirable".
  - Someone 16y ago
    Yes, technocally, it would be like that. Sociologically, however, things would be quite different; Apple's users did not have zillions of X applications that they already used.
RobGR 16y ago
From Mark's post: "We’re confident we’ll be able to retain the ability to run X applications in a compatibility mode, so this is not a transition that needs to reset the world of desktop free software. Nor is it a transition everyone needs to make at the same time: for the same reason we’ll keep investing in the 2D experience on Ubuntu despite also believing that Unity, with all it’s GL dependencies, is the best interface for the desktop." http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/551 http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/551 I don't see this as much of a threat, as long as they keep the compatibility until they realize that all those graphics effects are about as useful as 3d movies. Both the proprietary and free software worlds waste a lot of resources on that. Even minor GUI enhancements, such as the fact I can drag a window and it stays rendered instead of giving me a wire-frame TWM style, don't enhance useability much.

by limmeau 16y ago

Someone 16y ago

If this gains sufficient traction, and if this provides a better-looking way to render stuff on screen, I guess this will lead to applications that talk the superior protocol, not The X protocol. Such applications would not run on X displays. If I interpret things correctly, the link you give explicitly describes such a scenario: Further down the road we run a user session natively under Wayland with clients written for Wayland. There will still (always) be X applications to run, but we now run these under a root-less X server that is itself a client of the Wayland server. This will inject the X windows into the Wayland session as native looking clients. The session Wayland server can run as a nested Wayland server under the system Wayland server described above, maybe even side by side with X sessions. So, the X protocol could still be there for quite some time to support 'old' applications, but new applications wouldn't use it anymore. There are quite a few if's here, though. The first non-Ubuntu application to drop X support could face quite an uphill battle.

xorglorb 16y ago
So essentially it would be like Apple's X11. It will be there for backwards compatibility with older applications, but it will be considered "undesirable".
- Someone 16y ago
  Yes, technocally, it would be like that. Sociologically, however, things would be quite different; Apple's users did not have zillions of X applications that they already used.

RobGR 16y ago

From Mark's post: "We’re confident we’ll be able to retain the ability to run X applications in a compatibility mode, so this is not a transition that needs to reset the world of desktop free software. Nor is it a transition everyone needs to make at the same time: for the same reason we’ll keep investing in the 2D experience on Ubuntu despite also believing that Unity, with all it’s GL dependencies, is the best interface for the desktop." http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/551 http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/551 I don't see this as much of a threat, as long as they keep the compatibility until they realize that all those graphics effects are about as useful as 3d movies. Both the proprietary and free software worlds waste a lot of resources on that. Even minor GUI enhancements, such as the fact I can drag a window and it stays rendered instead of giving me a wire-frame TWM style, don't enhance useability much.