Ubuntu moving towards Wayland
gmaxwell at gmail.com
Tue Nov 9 17:12:37 UTC 2010
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Adam Jackson <ajax at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 04:05 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
>> +1 for bringing these points up. No offense to krh (because it's nice
>> technology) but you can pull my genuine networked applications from my
>> cold dead hands. I agree that I see this ongoing trend to move toward
>> things that are fluffy and pretty at the cost of flexibility.
> No. You see the system you know and understand being replaced by one
> you don't. You have an emotional attachment to the old system because
> it gives you a feature you like and the dozens of problems with it
> aren't important to you. And you claim that the replacement is less
> flexible because you don't understand or don't want to learn the new
I've mostly been watching here and I think people have been fairly
clearly about their concerns: Network transparency is important to
them, and they understand that the wayland message is that it will not
be supported. This message has been clear enough to me here and
elsewhere— with people arguing things like applications which need
network transparency are all now web based.
> You are, in short, scared.
... I think this is a rather unfair characterization.
Perhaps the concerns that people have are misplaced—— perhaps a switch
to somehow wayland doesn't imply a loss of reasonably functioning
network transparency. If so, then clarifying it beyond your "gtk/qt"
will offer both X and wayland would be helpful. Especially since
providing both TUI and GUI administrative tools hasn't really panned
out in practice.
In any case, I can't see that there has been any real concern raised
about _change_. Fedora is full of change. People are raising and
arguing specific concerns about the nature of the changes. Please
treat your list co-habitants with a little more respect.
> Remoting a wayland application is _trivial_. Either to an X or to a
> wayland view system. It's hard to make wayland remoting less flexible
> than X over the network, since the natural remoting level (surface
> updates) is basically stateless unlike X's sixteen complete IPC
> interfaces, and unlike X you're actually guaranteed that the window
> surfaces exist and have meaningful content. So you get the
> long-lusted-for "screen for X" almost for free.
One message ago you were saying that the network transparency concern
was a non-issue because GTK/QT apps would support both wayland and X.
Here you're saying that wayland will have network transparency?
I'm rather confused. Can you help me understand? So long as
integrated network transparency doesn't get any worse I don't think
that anyone raising concerns would have an issue.
More information about the devel