4 ms·

Yes, I don't understand this, either. Note that a) the Intel X driver does not, AFAICT, have any special code to support Wayland and b) the code Ubuntu want to

by voyou 13y ago

Yes, I don't understand this, either. Note that a) the Intel X driver does not, AFAICT, have any special code to support Wayland and b) the code Ubuntu want to add appears to be for XMir, which is an X server that runs on top of Mir, not for the Mir display server itself. An X server running on top of a different display server should not need specific support in the drivers of the X display server; that XMir apparently does makes me worried Mir is going to be an architectural clusterfuck.

gue5t 13y ago
It actually does have code to support XWayland, the analogue to XMir: <http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-intel/log/?h=xwayland&qt=grep&q=xwayland> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-intel/log... This code is an optimization, not a strict requirement, as you're right that in theory XWayland or XMir could be supported in a hardware-agnostic manner. For XWayland this is the (formerly "wlshm") xf86-video-wayland X driver: <http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-wayland/> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-wayland/>, but it is much slower than the hardware-specific options (which also exist for the radeon and nouveau X drivers). I don't know if there's an equivalent hardware-agnostic X driver for Mir, but in no case would a production-quality windowing server have that as its only method of compatibility for an important hardware segment--both Wayland and Mir developers expect X-dependent applications to stick around for quite some time, so they must perform as well as possible. For what it's worth, my hat is firmly in the Wayland camp; its design is simpler, its development more open, and its motivations more clear than those of Mir. Canonical does a bad job of software stewardship and I'd hate to see them in control of the dominant graphics solution for Linux.

by voyou 13y ago

gue5t 13y ago

It actually does have code to support XWayland, the analogue to XMir: <http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-intel/log/?h=xwayland&qt=grep&q=xwayland> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-intel/log... This code is an optimization, not a strict requirement, as you're right that in theory XWayland or XMir could be supported in a hardware-agnostic manner. For XWayland this is the (formerly "wlshm") xf86-video-wayland X driver: <http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-wayland/> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-wayland/>, but it is much slower than the hardware-specific options (which also exist for the radeon and nouveau X drivers). I don't know if there's an equivalent hardware-agnostic X driver for Mir, but in no case would a production-quality windowing server have that as its only method of compatibility for an important hardware segment--both Wayland and Mir developers expect X-dependent applications to stick around for quite some time, so they must perform as well as possible. For what it's worth, my hat is firmly in the Wayland camp; its design is simpler, its development more open, and its motivations more clear than those of Mir. Canonical does a bad job of software stewardship and I'd hate to see them in control of the dominant graphics solution for Linux.