3 ms·

Interesting. Nice to know. Never heard of Wayland outside the context of desktops.

by O_H_E 6y ago

skykooler 6y ago
It's also used on at least two mobile OS's - Sailfish OS and Plasma Mobile.
sho_hn 6y ago
Cars and TVs extensively use Wayland, e.g. LG's.
thayne 6y ago
Non desktop usecases are actually a major driver for wayland adoption, because x11 is very much designed for desktop, whereas wayland is intended to be more general.
- ddingus 6y ago
  Doesn't this ultimately mean X11 is needed? People keep arguing away the more advanced use cases. Others keep saying those use cases matter. So... Either, Weyland eventually ends up satisfying those use cases, and a lot of apps that go with them , or?
  - thayne 6y ago
    Well, the intention is that there are desktop-specific protocols (for example, xdg-shell) that would be implemented by desktop compositors (such as KDE, GNOME, and wlroots), but wouldn't need to be implemented in other environments. The problem is currently there are several use cases where such protocols either don't exist, or are not standardized across multiple compositors.
    - ddingus 6y ago
      Again, does that not mean X11 is needed, until those things are addressed?
      - thayne 6y ago
        For some people, yes. But if you don't need those things, or your compositor and apps of choice support the same protocols, it is possible to switch to wayland.
        ddingus 6y ago
        Well, sure. But the greater frustration here seems to be lack of interest in multi user graphical computing. Without the basic nature of X being a priority, the whole system is less. X was done the way Unix was. People thought through general purpose multi user networked computing. Sometimes just multi user, serial tty style. The gift of C was that same level of thought behind multi hser graphical computing. Again, sometimes networked, in the same fashion as above. Current efforts are not multi user graphical computing as a focus. It is said it can be. Many who understand how to use X think it should be. Unix is a powerful OS, with some of that potential being sidelined to optimize for specific cases. Long term, that may be a net loss. We may also find it gets reinvented again too.
    - ddingus 6y ago
      I want to be clear about something. I don't care how those use cases get addressed. I do care very much about Unix remaining Unix. And the way X was implemented is multi-user graphical computing. That's got a lot of advantages and lot of use cases that people put to good use. X works works over the network because Unix does things over the network. X is multi-user, like Unix is multi-user. Same goes for multi-headed systems, multiple displays all kinds of user interface devices. You name it. The problem quite simply is the new development isn't unix-like in the way X was Unix like. The question is whether people will accept a lesser Unix then they know is currently possible.
      - thayne 6y ago
        Afaik all of those things work fine with wayland, at least with wlroots. It is true that wayland isn't network transparent, but it can be used over the network with things like wayvnc and waypipe. Now you can say that those aren't really mature yet, and I would agree with you. I think wayland's readiness is often over-exagerated. However, I don't think any of the things you pointed out are compelling evudence that wayland isn't unix like. Otoh, I do think wayland departs from Unix in how it requires the "compositor" to perform to many roles. While in X, the compositor, window manager, etc. can be and often are seperarate processes from the x server, in wayland the compositor also needs to be the window manager, the keyboard layout manager, xwayland server, etc. And at least according some developers for a popular desktop environment, it is also the compositors responsibility to perform other tasks such as screen capture, vnc server, taskbar, lockscreen, etc. It isn't possible to do something like use i3 as the window manager for kde in wayland.
        ddingus 6y ago
        Your "not unix like" comments ring true, and similar ones have been brought up with systemd. My "I don't care how we get the use cases done" point of view applies to systems just as it does wayland. I don't care so much, so long as we preserve how robust UNIX is. Now to be fair, I think doing that gets a lot harder as these kinds of efforts continue, but the door is open. May end up in a good place. Personally, I wish all the current Wayland users and devs would experience an SGI X environment. Great experience. If, at the end of the day, stuff ends up working that good, few will complain.

Interesting. Nice to know. Never heard of Wayland outside the context of desktops.

by O_H_E 6y ago

Interesting. Nice to know. Never heard of Wayland outside the context of desktops.

skykooler 6y ago

It's also used on at least two mobile OS's - Sailfish OS and Plasma Mobile.

sho_hn 6y ago

Cars and TVs extensively use Wayland, e.g. LG's.

thayne 6y ago

Non desktop usecases are actually a major driver for wayland adoption, because x11 is very much designed for desktop, whereas wayland is intended to be more general.

ddingus 6y ago
Doesn't this ultimately mean X11 is needed? People keep arguing away the more advanced use cases. Others keep saying those use cases matter. So... Either, Weyland eventually ends up satisfying those use cases, and a lot of apps that go with them , or?
- thayne 6y ago
  Well, the intention is that there are desktop-specific protocols (for example, xdg-shell) that would be implemented by desktop compositors (such as KDE, GNOME, and wlroots), but wouldn't need to be implemented in other environments. The problem is currently there are several use cases where such protocols either don't exist, or are not standardized across multiple compositors.
  - ddingus 6y ago
    Again, does that not mean X11 is needed, until those things are addressed?
    - thayne 6y ago
      For some people, yes. But if you don't need those things, or your compositor and apps of choice support the same protocols, it is possible to switch to wayland.
      - ddingus 6y ago
        Well, sure. But the greater frustration here seems to be lack of interest in multi user graphical computing. Without the basic nature of X being a priority, the whole system is less. X was done the way Unix was. People thought through general purpose multi user networked computing. Sometimes just multi user, serial tty style. The gift of C was that same level of thought behind multi hser graphical computing. Again, sometimes networked, in the same fashion as above. Current efforts are not multi user graphical computing as a focus. It is said it can be. Many who understand how to use X think it should be. Unix is a powerful OS, with some of that potential being sidelined to optimize for specific cases. Long term, that may be a net loss. We may also find it gets reinvented again too.
  - ddingus 6y ago
    I want to be clear about something. I don't care how those use cases get addressed. I do care very much about Unix remaining Unix. And the way X was implemented is multi-user graphical computing. That's got a lot of advantages and lot of use cases that people put to good use. X works works over the network because Unix does things over the network. X is multi-user, like Unix is multi-user. Same goes for multi-headed systems, multiple displays all kinds of user interface devices. You name it. The problem quite simply is the new development isn't unix-like in the way X was Unix like. The question is whether people will accept a lesser Unix then they know is currently possible.
    - thayne 6y ago
      Afaik all of those things work fine with wayland, at least with wlroots. It is true that wayland isn't network transparent, but it can be used over the network with things like wayvnc and waypipe. Now you can say that those aren't really mature yet, and I would agree with you. I think wayland's readiness is often over-exagerated. However, I don't think any of the things you pointed out are compelling evudence that wayland isn't unix like. Otoh, I do think wayland departs from Unix in how it requires the "compositor" to perform to many roles. While in X, the compositor, window manager, etc. can be and often are seperarate processes from the x server, in wayland the compositor also needs to be the window manager, the keyboard layout manager, xwayland server, etc. And at least according some developers for a popular desktop environment, it is also the compositors responsibility to perform other tasks such as screen capture, vnc server, taskbar, lockscreen, etc. It isn't possible to do something like use i3 as the window manager for kde in wayland.
      - ddingus 6y ago
        Your "not unix like" comments ring true, and similar ones have been brought up with systemd. My "I don't care how we get the use cases done" point of view applies to systems just as it does wayland. I don't care so much, so long as we preserve how robust UNIX is. Now to be fair, I think doing that gets a lot harder as these kinds of efforts continue, but the door is open. May end up in a good place. Personally, I wish all the current Wayland users and devs would experience an SGI X environment. Great experience. If, at the end of the day, stuff ends up working that good, few will complain.