Ubuntu moving towards Wayland
aph at redhat.com
Tue Nov 9 19:09:10 UTC 2010
On 11/09/2010 06:43 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 17:40 +0000, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> I'm wondering of I'm reading this correctly. The downsides that have
>> been described are quite severe in contrast to the possible benefits.
>> It is, of course, possible that a mistake has been made, and the acute
>> loss of functionality is just scaremongering. It's also possible that
>> I've misunderstood something.
> The downsides that have been described include:
> - We lose network transparency! Well, sure, the protocol doesn't have
> that directly. You can still do vnc-like things trivially and with a
> modest amount of additional wayland protocol (or just inter-client
> conventions) you can do spice-like things. This is good, not bad,
> because efficient remoting protocols do not look like X. Now we get to
> design a good one, and in the meantime vnc-style remoting sure does go a
> long way towards being good enough. (But, we can't switch yet, because
> we don't even have vnc-style remoting yet; so we're not switching yet.)
OK, so it's likely that everything will just continue to work
remotely, and people won't experience any problems. And they won't
have to run VNC just to get their favourite app to display remotely.
If this had been explained clearly to begin with, we could have
avoided all this pain.
> - All my X apps have to be ported! Yes, if they want to be native
> wayland clients, they do. If they don't, you can run a nested X server
> like on OSX. They'll still work as well as they ever did, and you even
> get to keep ssh forwarding of them. You can run a wayland server that
> does nothing but run a nested X server and you wouldn't ever know the
> difference. Except of course that your shell and your screensaver can
> be wayland apps, which means your screen locker will still work even if
> an app has a menu open, and you can actually do secure password input,
> and and and. (But, we really don't have _any_ good native wayland apps
> yet, thus the benefit of native apps are at the moment theoretical; so
> we're not switching yet.)
> Anything I'm missing?
It looked like a bunch of kiddies who had never used remote X
applications had decided we didn't need to do that anymore, and it was
more important to get kewl features like smooth scrolling and rotating
3D whatnots. It seems that isn't true, and we don't need to worry.
The lunatics have not, in fact, taken over the asylum.
More information about the devel