Why wayland? from a users view

Roberth · 2013-10-19 22:55:22

Hello

So far I have understood that wayland will replace x.org server as rendering protocol. I have understood that from a developers point of view, it is much simpler to maintain and relate to as an developer of the applications that speaks directly to the rendering protocol etc.... BUT....

What advantages does it present for the end user?

Last edited by Roberth (2013-10-19 23:02:21)

Thorsten Reinbold · 2013-10-20 03:51:44

I guess, this is the (imho good) question wayland development has startet with.

Last edited by Thorsten Reinbold (2013-10-20 14:32:48)

drcouzelis · 2013-10-20 04:09:27

You will never see "tearing" in Wayland, which means movement (such as moving a window) should look smoother.

karol · 2013-10-20 04:16:15

Thorsten Reinbold wrote:

I guess, thies the (imho good) question wayland development has startet with.

Ummm ... What?

t0m5k1 · 2013-10-20 09:11:11

karol wrote:

Thorsten Reinbold wrote:
I guess, thies the (imho good) question wayland development has startet with.
Ummm ... What?

agreed ...I re-read that sentence 10 times & still cannot work out what it is he is trying to say!

ngoonee · 2013-10-20 10:38:25

Sounds like 'this is the'

karol · 2013-10-20 10:54:06

ngoonee wrote:

Sounds like 'this is the'

If they started with "What advantages does Wayland present for the end user?", these goals (benefits for the user) don't seem to be listed anywhere.

Trent · 2013-10-20 11:51:43

Wayland isn't for the end user. End users aren't going to drive the switch; it's not like upgrading to Windows 8 -- you don't have to sell the product to end users who are buying it. The buyers are the developers who maintain distributions and write software. The fact that end users will get it too is a side effect.

Few end users care about Xorg. They care about applications like Facebook, Netflix, Steam, Minecraft, Skype, etc. but not about Mono, Flash, Java or any of those other technologies; they'll upgrade when the developers force them to.

I use my computer mostly for browsing the Web and the occasional game. Weston+X is too much hassle for me; that's why I use Arch to begin with -- it frees me to focus on stuff I do care about. But I look forward to using it when it matures a bit.

Last edited by Trent (2013-10-20 11:52:01)

Weegee · 2013-10-20 13:55:31

This was a Q&A thread on the Phoronix forums where users could bring up questions which were answered by Wayland developers. Might be an interesting read for some people.

Roberth · 2013-10-21 02:03:13

The problem is that it takes care of the under the hood differences AFAIK.

drcouzelis wrote:

You will never see "tearing" in Wayland, which means movement (such as moving a window) should look smoother.

I though you would vsync to avoid that anyway?

Giselher · 2013-10-23 07:34:19

Roberth wrote:

The problem is that it takes care of the under the hood differences AFAIK.
drcouzelis wrote:
You will never see "tearing" in Wayland, which means movement (such as moving a window) should look smoother.
I though you would vsync to avoid that anyway?

You can't avoid tearing without a compositor. X11 just doesn't know about vsync and tearing.
I only use a compositor for watching videos (compton in my case), because without it watching videos is unbearable.

pjezek · 2013-12-15 16:05:53

Any user would benefit from simplicity and streamliness of Wayland in comparison with Xorg. Those more familiar with designed and being developed Wayland features can sipmply say how much space for data, processing time and power can be saved with Wayland applied instead Xorg. Tearing is really not an argument...

Last edited by pjezek (2013-12-15 16:06:19)

lelele · 2013-12-25 18:56:24

So the reason we're still using Xorg is the same reason most people are still using Windows? Not because it's good but because everything we need works on it?

Gulver · 2013-12-25 19:35:30

By a plain look into linux world, Xorg is probably the most primitive element of it, compared to its usage although its reliance with GTK or Qt. Even though It does make it happen to have some decent drivers for GPUs and all the benefits, one still simply cannot even run two X'instances.

It sounds like forking the kernel but I liked the idea.

Last edited by Gulver (2013-12-25 19:36:12)

Rasi · 2013-12-25 19:48:16

Gulver wrote:

By a plain look into linux world, Xorg is probably the most primitive element of it, compared to its usage although its reliance with GTK or Qt. Even though It does make it happen to have some decent drivers for GPUs and all the benefits, one still simply cannot even run two X'instances.
It sounds like forking the kernel but I liked the idea.

Ehm, what? I run 2 X instances all the time...

Gulver · 2013-12-26 11:36:22

Rasi wrote:

Ehm, what? I run 2 X instances all the time...

You'd run two Xservers distances, in indifferent TTYs, not two instances. It is a little detail but can give pretty advantages over variety in future development. I'm no expert and may be wrong (not that fundementally as you expected) but I guess it would make it easier, for example to run steam X window with its own compositor they made for SteamOS while using your Xfce with compton

Last edited by Gulver (2013-12-26 11:40:28)

Trilby · 2013-12-26 13:43:59

Pstree -p output:

  ├─login(224)───bash(407)───xinit(443)─┬─X(444)───{X}(445)
  │                                     └─alopex(462)───lagopus(465)
  ├─login(29429)───bash(29460)───xinit(30029)─┬─X(30030)───{X}(30031)
  │                                           └─openbox(30034)───urxvt(30066)───bash(30067)

How is that not two isntances of X?

Gulver · 2013-12-27 01:25:51

I'll just take my solipsist face on; I'm no expert, not that I even tried to use Xserver in an Xserver which will probably end up with something awful by default. However, if someone would make a software that is more than a script to run X'instances (I'm still saying instance, God forbid) in a customized way with ease and also offering more "candy" I'm for it.

(English is not my native language that have a pretty awful relation with Latin which I'm pretty good at and it makes me do some etymological crap-cake. Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

Last edited by Gulver (2013-12-27 01:30:05)

ConnorBehan · 2014-02-03 07:39:16

By the time Wayland is ready, there might not be any reasons left. The tearing issue has been fixed with DRI3 + Present and the Wayland code base (while smaller right now) keeps getting bigger.

By the way, what is the plan for Ozone Wayland? If Chromium doesn't work on Wayland, shouldn't you just submit a patch to Google instead of writing a Wayland fork?

progandy · 2014-02-03 07:53:35

ConnorBehan wrote:

By the way, what is the plan for Ozone Wayland? If Chromium doesn't work on Wayland, shouldn't you just submit a patch to Google instead of writing a Wayland fork?

They don't want new platforms in the chromium sourcetree. I guess once ozone is stable you should simply be able to pull both chromium and ozone-wayland and compile without any patches to chromium.
http://www.chromium.org/developers/desi … ents/ozone

new X11-alternative window systems on Linux such as Wayland or Mir to bring up Aura Chromium without needing additional platform code added to the Chromium source tree.

dakt · 2014-02-16 22:25:00

Roberth wrote:

Hello
So far I have understood that wayland will replace x.org server as rendering protocol. I have understood that from a developers point of view, it is much simpler to maintain and relate to as an developer of the applications that speaks directly to the rendering protocol etc.... BUT....
What advantages does it present for the end user?

Well, being developer myself, providing good programming model and sane api is more then a good reason to do the switch, especially in open source world.
Happy developers = better product

kahrkunne · 2014-11-13 17:54:39

It doesn't really concern them anyways. When the change comes, if everything is done right, end users will barely notice the change.

Arch Linux

#1 2013-10-19 22:55:22

Why wayland? from a users view

#2 2013-10-20 03:51:44

Re: Why wayland? from a users view

#3 2013-10-20 04:09:27

Re: Why wayland? from a users view

#4 2013-10-20 04:16:15

Re: Why wayland? from a users view

#5 2013-10-20 09:11:11

Re: Why wayland? from a users view

#6 2013-10-20 10:38:25

Re: Why wayland? from a users view

#7 2013-10-20 10:54:06

Re: Why wayland? from a users view

#8 2013-10-20 11:51:43

Re: Why wayland? from a users view

#9 2013-10-20 13:55:31

Re: Why wayland? from a users view

#10 2013-10-21 02:03:13

Re: Why wayland? from a users view

#11 2013-10-23 07:34:19

Re: Why wayland? from a users view

#12 2013-12-15 16:05:53

Re: Why wayland? from a users view

#13 2013-12-25 18:56:24

Re: Why wayland? from a users view

#14 2013-12-25 19:35:30

Re: Why wayland? from a users view

#15 2013-12-25 19:48:16

Re: Why wayland? from a users view

#16 2013-12-26 11:36:22

Re: Why wayland? from a users view

#17 2013-12-26 13:43:59

Re: Why wayland? from a users view

#18 2013-12-27 01:25:51

Re: Why wayland? from a users view

#19 2014-02-03 07:39:16

Re: Why wayland? from a users view

#20 2014-02-03 07:53:35

Re: Why wayland? from a users view

#21 2014-02-16 22:25:00

Re: Why wayland? from a users view

#22 2014-11-13 17:54:39

Re: Why wayland? from a users view

Board footer