4 ms·
> So, your X server is really effectively nothing more than a shitty Wayland compositor. No it is a much better Wayland compositor because unlike Xwayland it
by sprash 5y ago
> So, your X server is really effectively nothing more than a shitty Wayland compositor.
No it is a much better Wayland compositor because unlike Xwayland it provides full backwards compatibility. You even need much less boiler plate code to get a file descriptor on X11 as compared to Wayland.
> Having the X server, window manager, and compositing engine in separate processes introduces latency due to context switches on the hot path.
This is only makes a difference for rare events like moving/resizing windows. For static window positions it is the exact same path as Wayland. In practice Wayland had historically even much worse latency than X11. This has only been fixed a few years ago. Latency has low priority for Wayland developers. And as such Wayland does not beat uncomposited X11 in latency to this day.
- md8z 5y agoThe stuff that's not backwards compatible in XWayland is mostly already broken by X compositors anyway and needed to be reimplemented, so that's why there wasn't much incentive to fix that. I've seen some of your comments around and I'm really struggling to figure out what your use case is. "This is only makes a difference for rare events like moving/resizing windows." This is actually wrong, that type of split affects the rendering of every single frame. Also, uncomposited X11 is a bad idea for a number of other reasons, the only reasonable comparison to make there is composited X versus Wayland, which is what all the benchmarks I've seen are aiming for.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]