4 ms·

> Xorg offers a fairly good out-of-box experience on many GPUs but it falls apart when you try to do things that would be considered normal on other OSes You a

by sprash 3y ago

> Xorg offers a fairly good out-of-box experience on many GPUs but it falls apart when you try to do things that would be considered normal on other OSes You are you talking about Wayland. Wayland has no or severely lacking mechanisms for screenshots, screen sharing, positioning of windows, window management, window icons, drag and drop, ... Many of the issues are duck-taped with a clusterfuck of incompatible external protocols which turns the whole ecosystem into a complete mess. But what do you expect from a severely lacking protocol designed for digital signage and car entertainment systems that is being shoehorned into a desktop protocol. > Everybody keeps treating this issue like it's just programmers deprecating old code for fun No. It's all about funding. DARPA (=RedHat) used to fund X11, now it's funding Wayland. That's it. X11 is still to this day the better solution for Desktops, by a long shot. > while it's easy to downplay the importance of its shortcomings The only shortcomings that are consistently being downplayed are those of Wayland.

akdev1l 3y ago
> DARPA (=RedHat) This seems like high level tin foil hat wearing. Are there any publicly available sources that tie up DARPA, Red Hat and Xorg? I’m not even sure what to Google tbh.
- sprash 3y ago
  Besides the point. The only reason Wayland is worked on and X11 is not worked on is funding. Not because Wayland is in any way better or something. It's clearly worse than X11 in almost every aspect.
jchw 3y ago
> You are you talking about Wayland. Wayland has no or severely lacking mechanisms for screenshots, screen sharing, positioning of windows, window management, window icons, drag and drop, ... > Many of the issues are duck-taped with a clusterfuck of incompatible external protocols which turns the whole ecosystem into a complete mess. As opposed to the mess of X protocols which are elegant and working great? - The X11 protocol itself is insane. Obviously any reasonable person is going to want to write an app that just uses bindings like XCB, but if you venture into the protocol from the ground up you will quickly run into weird concepts like visuals and colormaps that beckon back to the days of 256 color graphics, and protocols whose endianness depended on the host machine. - There is an input method protocol called XIM. It has not been updated or improved at all in 30 years, and nobody has ever attempted to make a successor to my knowledge. It is essentially completely useless, and thus all of the modern UI toolkits, IME buses, and input methods have to implement their own communications. It winds up being N x M, twice (once for UI toolkits to buses, and a gain for buses to input methods.) When people run into an issue and IBus or FCITX stop working, they usually just give up, because fucking with environment variables and UI toolkit plugins to try to get everything to work again is just not worth the trouble. Wayland does not have a perfect world here, but what it has is real life progress on this issue, wherein one can install Sway, fcitx5 and a GTK-4 app and everything works. - X has some core input events, but it's not enough, so there is XInput. XInput was also not enough, so there is now XInput2. XInput2 is not new but it is still not the default in many apps, like Wine's graphics tablet support or Firefox (which has XI2 code, but it's still disabled.) This is the short version, because I value my sanity. But as someone who tried using a touchscreen on Linux in 2013, I assure you I have more experience with the "robust stability" that Xorg is known for. - Inter-app communication is handled via ICCCM, which isn't an X protocol per se but more of a way of catastrophically abusing X properties, including using them as synchronization primitives for makeshift data channels. To this day, QXcb is known to have race conditions in its implementation of bulk clipboard transfers in some (thankfully rare) circumstances, and nobody has figured out what causes it. What is true is that over the years, Xorg has been improved greatly. It has hotplugging. Modeswitching has been moved to the kernel. It no longer requires root. It is no longer literally a print server. There are far less segfaults hiding in XI. However, the design issues that X ran into are basically cemented into history at this point, and that's why it is not a viable path forward. > But what do you expect from a severely lacking protocol designed for digital signage and car entertainment systems that is being shoehorned into a desktop protocol. Wayland was definitely not originally or especially designed for embedded use cases. It was explicitly developed as a successor to X11 that reflected the direction the Linux graphics stack was moving in. It was indeed developed by Redhat, but also by a prominent developer that worked on Xorg. I am aware that Weston has indeed gained some success in automotive and embedded environments, but this makes sense, it's well-suited for that. Xorg wasn't fantastic for these use cases for a variety of reasons, but Wayland offers much more flexibility for vendors. You can relatively easily extend Weston or even write your own compositor using just standard Linux graphics technology, seems pretty convenient. > No. It's all about funding. DARPA (=RedHat) used to fund X11, now it's funding Wayland. That's it. Not that this is relevant or anything but... man. No comment. > X11 is still to this day the better solution for Desktops, by a long shot. It is definitely the best solution for desktops that have the exact same set of needs they had 20 years ago. I'm not even disputing that, I'm dead serious. If your needs for a desktop haven't dramatically changed in the last couple of decades X11 is objectively better. What you are missing is that for a lot of people, it has in fact changed quite a lot, and this is legitimately holding back Linux. I'm not arguing Wayland is a beautiful and elegant design. I'm arguing that we need something that we can actually fucking improve and build the future on top of, and between X and Wayland as a base, it's not even close. It's Wayland. It has been Wayland. > The only shortcomings that are consistently being downplayed are those of Wayland. The reason why people think this is simple. When most people talk about Wayland shortcomings, they're talking about things that actually can be improved and fixed, in some cases they're being fixed right now, in others it might take time but there's paths forward. When most people talk about X11 shortcomings, they're talking about things that will never, ever be fixed. Ever. The only thing that's been entertaining to me is that X was always the bane of our existence and the butt of many Linux user's jokes in around 2004, but somehow there is amnesia. Now the impetus to move on from X11 is suddenly seen as hasty, despite the fact that it is definitely severely overdue.
- sprash 3y ago
  > As opposed to the mess of X protocols which are elegant and working great? They are clearly better, simpler and more tested then the conglomerate of protocol mess pertaining the Wayland ecosystem. > The X11 protocol itself is insane. According to whom? I would call Wayland insane. This is just your personal opinion > Wayland does not have a perfect world here X11 is not great, but Wayland is far worse also in this case. I agree. > XInput was also not enough, so there is now XInput2. X11 is designed to be extended. Wayland manages to be worse than all of that. > Inter-app communication is handled via ICCCM Wrong! ICCCM standardizes communication between window managers and clients. Which is one of the strengths of X11 and allowed a plethora of niche window managers to flourish. X properties are not "abused" for IPC. They are a central part of it and far more elegant than abominations like dbus or Wayland. > QXcb is known to have race conditions Qt is more concerned with portability than being a X11 toolkit. That's why they are having problems. > However, the design issues that X ran into are basically cemented into history at this point, and that's why it is not a viable path forward. There are zero design issues with X. With the right extensions it can be a "viable" path forward. > If your needs for a desktop haven't dramatically changed in the last couple of decades X11 is objectively better. Indeed but even for today's needs in a world where screen sharing is one of the most important tasks of desktop computers X11 manages to be miles ahead of Wayland which does not even standardize basic functionality like screen sharing. > I'm arguing that we need something that we can actually fucking improve and build the future on top of, and between X and Wayland as a base, it's not even close. It's Wayland. It has been Wayland. What is your argument here? Wayland is shit but it is "the future"? X11 is extensible by design and has been extended many times. In this way it "survived" many generations of graphics hardware starting from dual ported RAM and ending with GPU's where one is more powerful than all computers in the world combined at the time X11 was introduced. > When most people talk about Wayland shortcomings, they're talking about things that actually can be improved and fixed, in some cases they're being fixed right now, in others it might take time but there's paths forward. Waylanders are "fixing" things for 16 years now. This mantra is getting bit stale to say the least. > When most people talk about X11 shortcomings, they're talking about things that will never, ever be fixed. Ever. What exactly can never "EVER" be fixed on X11. Can't think of a single thing. > The only thing that's been entertaining to me is that X was always the bane of our existence and the butt of many Linux user's jokes in around 2004 X11 was bad in 2004. But so was every other operating system that had to deal with a new type of graphics hardware. It was a symptom of technological progress. Wayland was never great and due to the politics, its idiotic design and protocol hell it will never be. > Now the impetus to move on from X11 is suddenly seen as hasty, despite the fact that it is definitely severely overdue. The only thing that is overdue is putting Wayland into the trash where it belongs.

by sprash 3y ago

akdev1l 3y ago

> DARPA (=RedHat) This seems like high level tin foil hat wearing. Are there any publicly available sources that tie up DARPA, Red Hat and Xorg? I’m not even sure what to Google tbh.

sprash 3y ago
Besides the point. The only reason Wayland is worked on and X11 is not worked on is funding. Not because Wayland is in any way better or something. It's clearly worse than X11 in almost every aspect.

jchw 3y ago

> You are you talking about Wayland. Wayland has no or severely lacking mechanisms for screenshots, screen sharing, positioning of windows, window management, window icons, drag and drop, ... > Many of the issues are duck-taped with a clusterfuck of incompatible external protocols which turns the whole ecosystem into a complete mess. As opposed to the mess of X protocols which are elegant and working great? - The X11 protocol itself is insane. Obviously any reasonable person is going to want to write an app that just uses bindings like XCB, but if you venture into the protocol from the ground up you will quickly run into weird concepts like visuals and colormaps that beckon back to the days of 256 color graphics, and protocols whose endianness depended on the host machine. - There is an input method protocol called XIM. It has not been updated or improved at all in 30 years, and nobody has ever attempted to make a successor to my knowledge. It is essentially completely useless, and thus all of the modern UI toolkits, IME buses, and input methods have to implement their own communications. It winds up being N x M, twice (once for UI toolkits to buses, and a gain for buses to input methods.) When people run into an issue and IBus or FCITX stop working, they usually just give up, because fucking with environment variables and UI toolkit plugins to try to get everything to work again is just not worth the trouble. Wayland does not have a perfect world here, but what it has is real life progress on this issue, wherein one can install Sway, fcitx5 and a GTK-4 app and everything works. - X has some core input events, but it's not enough, so there is XInput. XInput was also not enough, so there is now XInput2. XInput2 is not new but it is still not the default in many apps, like Wine's graphics tablet support or Firefox (which has XI2 code, but it's still disabled.) This is the short version, because I value my sanity. But as someone who tried using a touchscreen on Linux in 2013, I assure you I have more experience with the "robust stability" that Xorg is known for. - Inter-app communication is handled via ICCCM, which isn't an X protocol per se but more of a way of catastrophically abusing X properties, including using them as synchronization primitives for makeshift data channels. To this day, QXcb is known to have race conditions in its implementation of bulk clipboard transfers in some (thankfully rare) circumstances, and nobody has figured out what causes it. What is true is that over the years, Xorg has been improved greatly. It has hotplugging. Modeswitching has been moved to the kernel. It no longer requires root. It is no longer literally a print server. There are far less segfaults hiding in XI. However, the design issues that X ran into are basically cemented into history at this point, and that's why it is not a viable path forward. > But what do you expect from a severely lacking protocol designed for digital signage and car entertainment systems that is being shoehorned into a desktop protocol. Wayland was definitely not originally or especially designed for embedded use cases. It was explicitly developed as a successor to X11 that reflected the direction the Linux graphics stack was moving in. It was indeed developed by Redhat, but also by a prominent developer that worked on Xorg. I am aware that Weston has indeed gained some success in automotive and embedded environments, but this makes sense, it's well-suited for that. Xorg wasn't fantastic for these use cases for a variety of reasons, but Wayland offers much more flexibility for vendors. You can relatively easily extend Weston or even write your own compositor using just standard Linux graphics technology, seems pretty convenient. > No. It's all about funding. DARPA (=RedHat) used to fund X11, now it's funding Wayland. That's it. Not that this is relevant or anything but... man. No comment. > X11 is still to this day the better solution for Desktops, by a long shot. It is definitely the best solution for desktops that have the exact same set of needs they had 20 years ago. I'm not even disputing that, I'm dead serious. If your needs for a desktop haven't dramatically changed in the last couple of decades X11 is objectively better. What you are missing is that for a lot of people, it has in fact changed quite a lot, and this is legitimately holding back Linux. I'm not arguing Wayland is a beautiful and elegant design. I'm arguing that we need something that we can actually fucking improve and build the future on top of, and between X and Wayland as a base, it's not even close. It's Wayland. It has been Wayland. > The only shortcomings that are consistently being downplayed are those of Wayland. The reason why people think this is simple. When most people talk about Wayland shortcomings, they're talking about things that actually can be improved and fixed, in some cases they're being fixed right now, in others it might take time but there's paths forward. When most people talk about X11 shortcomings, they're talking about things that will never, ever be fixed. Ever. The only thing that's been entertaining to me is that X was always the bane of our existence and the butt of many Linux user's jokes in around 2004, but somehow there is amnesia. Now the impetus to move on from X11 is suddenly seen as hasty, despite the fact that it is definitely severely overdue.

sprash 3y ago
> As opposed to the mess of X protocols which are elegant and working great? They are clearly better, simpler and more tested then the conglomerate of protocol mess pertaining the Wayland ecosystem. > The X11 protocol itself is insane. According to whom? I would call Wayland insane. This is just your personal opinion > Wayland does not have a perfect world here X11 is not great, but Wayland is far worse also in this case. I agree. > XInput was also not enough, so there is now XInput2. X11 is designed to be extended. Wayland manages to be worse than all of that. > Inter-app communication is handled via ICCCM Wrong! ICCCM standardizes communication between window managers and clients. Which is one of the strengths of X11 and allowed a plethora of niche window managers to flourish. X properties are not "abused" for IPC. They are a central part of it and far more elegant than abominations like dbus or Wayland. > QXcb is known to have race conditions Qt is more concerned with portability than being a X11 toolkit. That's why they are having problems. > However, the design issues that X ran into are basically cemented into history at this point, and that's why it is not a viable path forward. There are zero design issues with X. With the right extensions it can be a "viable" path forward. > If your needs for a desktop haven't dramatically changed in the last couple of decades X11 is objectively better. Indeed but even for today's needs in a world where screen sharing is one of the most important tasks of desktop computers X11 manages to be miles ahead of Wayland which does not even standardize basic functionality like screen sharing. > I'm arguing that we need something that we can actually fucking improve and build the future on top of, and between X and Wayland as a base, it's not even close. It's Wayland. It has been Wayland. What is your argument here? Wayland is shit but it is "the future"? X11 is extensible by design and has been extended many times. In this way it "survived" many generations of graphics hardware starting from dual ported RAM and ending with GPU's where one is more powerful than all computers in the world combined at the time X11 was introduced. > When most people talk about Wayland shortcomings, they're talking about things that actually can be improved and fixed, in some cases they're being fixed right now, in others it might take time but there's paths forward. Waylanders are "fixing" things for 16 years now. This mantra is getting bit stale to say the least. > When most people talk about X11 shortcomings, they're talking about things that will never, ever be fixed. Ever. What exactly can never "EVER" be fixed on X11. Can't think of a single thing. > The only thing that's been entertaining to me is that X was always the bane of our existence and the butt of many Linux user's jokes in around 2004 X11 was bad in 2004. But so was every other operating system that had to deal with a new type of graphics hardware. It was a symptom of technological progress. Wayland was never great and due to the politics, its idiotic design and protocol hell it will never be. > Now the impetus to move on from X11 is suddenly seen as hasty, despite the fact that it is definitely severely overdue. The only thing that is overdue is putting Wayland into the trash where it belongs.