4 ms·

specific? They are pretty damn vague, not to mention completely wrong. See e.g. the comments from X.org/Wayland developers at: https://plus.google.com/1004097

• Symmetry 14y ago
  Yes, they got one thing wrong though it's already been corrected in Canonical's design document. But it seems to me that the main problem Canonical had with Wayland was that they wanted to run their stack on devices that only had Android device drivers. As far as I can tell Wayland relies on things like KMS to function, and at the very least Firefox OS has no plans to use Wayland because they don't think they can get it to use the Android drivers they're planning on using.
  • Arelius 14y ago
    That seems like a very good and practical reason to me. As far as I could tell, Wayland is very much tied to KMS, and not interested in doing otherwise.
    • yepguy 14y ago
      Wayland already had a proof-of-concept Android backend that worked with Android drivers.
  • cbs 14y ago
    > As far as I can tell Wayland relies on things like KMS to function Is this a limitation of Wayland or the reference implementation? If I'm not mistaken the server needs a modesetting api, not necessarily KMS. The server runs on top of a modesetting API (kernel modesetting, OpenWF Display or similar) http://wayland.freedesktop.org/architecture.html http://wayland.freedesktop.org/architecture.html
  • slurgfest 14y ago
    So much the worse for using Android. It's past time that we have proper Linux on phones without interposing all the Google-Java stuff.
    • wtracy 14y ago
      I believe this was referring to the Android kernel patches, not the Java-based userland.
    • drivebyacct2 14y ago
      Java, or rather Dalvik, has absolutely nothing to do with the kernel or graphics stack in Android.