Ubuntu moving towards Wayland
dennisml at conversis.de
Tue Nov 9 18:12:39 UTC 2010
On 11/09/2010 06:12 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> 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 mis-interpreting the message probably because you are not a
developer and as a result don't know how software is designed in layers.
Wayland handles the visual aspects of the desktop. Networking doesn't
belong there. A remote app layer will sit on top of Wayland and deal with
the communication between both ends.
>> You are, in short, scared.
> ... I think this is a rather unfair characterization.
Given the fact that people are heading for their nuclear vaults for reasons
that only exist in their fantasies I'd say that's an accurate description.
> 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.
Then why are people already calling for the rejection of Wayland even
though Wayland is still far from being finished and hasn't even touched
raising concerns != screaming the sky is falling
>> 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.
X will run as a Wayland client. That means all applications that support X
will be able to run remotely without change. Since QT and GTK both run on X
and virtually all apps out there are programmed to use QT and/or GTK for
most people nothing will change in the next couple of years.
That's why it's so hard to understand why people are already bringing out
their torches and pitchforks over this.
Now let's assume Wayland is really successull. In that case people will
want to get rid of X altogether and then you'd also lose the remote app
support of X and in that case you obviously would need a replacement for
this so apps can run remotely on an X-less Wayland desktop.
What's puzzling is why people are willing to form hardened opinions on
things they apparently don't understand. It's baffling.
More information about the devel