Ubuntu moving towards Wayland
awilliam at redhat.com
Tue Nov 9 18:56:44 UTC 2010
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 13:47 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 12:12 -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > > 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 Adam Jackson. That was Adam Williamson. We look a bit alike over
> ASCII I suppose, but in meatspace my hair is more likely to be
> interesting colors.
Also, those two things are not at all incompatible (though ajax, please
do correct me if I was wrong in what I wrote, or if I'm wrong in this).
It's perfectly possible (and I think likely) both for Wayland to be
implemented in such a way that you can use X remoting more or less
transparently, *and* for there to be some kind of native remoting
protocol for Wayland.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
More information about the devel