Most new ideas are stupid and dangerous. Wayland is one of them. Though,
Most old ideas are stupid and dangerous too, but Wayland is not one them.
That's a fantastic thesis. Care to elaborate amongst the two protocols?
Most new ideas are stupid and dangerous. Wayland is one of them. Though,
Most old ideas are stupid and dangerous too, but Wayland is not one them.
Certainly. Xorg works, Wayland doesn't.Care to elaborate amongst the two protocols?
I do not see any problem there. X11 is not very big, nothing compared with the modern bloat software, it runs in old processors, in thin clients without problems. Wyland is not comparable with it, it does not implement the main goal of X11. Under this conditions, "legacy reasons" are also an advantage.Well, the old X11 protocol is a dinosaur. 90 % of the code in the Xorg server exists for legacy reasons, inherited from typical GUI programs of the 1980s, but it’s not used at all by today’s application.
I’m pretty sure that most of the Xorg developers would completely disagree with that.I do not see any problem there. X11 is not very big, nothing compared with the modern bloat software, it runs in old processors, in thin clients without problems. Wyland is not comparable with it, it does not implement the main goal of X11. Under this conditions, "legacy reasons" are also an advantage.
PS: By the way, most of the Wayland developers are also Xorg developers.
I’m pretty sure that most of the Xorg developers would completely disagree with that.
The former.Are most of the Wayland developers Xorg developers, or most of the Xorg developers Wayland developers?
Because I’m a developer myself, and I had the “pleasure” of working with the source code of the XFree86 X11 server some time ago. And it didn’t get better since then. Apart from that, the X.org developers are well aware of the shortcomings of X11. This is a recurring topic on the xorg mailing list. One of the X.org developers collected some of the X11 problems on this wiki page at x.org (under the provocative title “X12”). The security nightmare is just one of many problems.And how are you so sure of what others think?
Maybe see here https://archive.org/details/freebsd-cdroms?&sort=-downloads&page=2I've started in 2005 when I bought a book which had a FreeBSD 5.4 CD. Still have the book, unfortunately I lost the CD.
View attachment 9113
The wiki you quoted contradicts it. Guess why.Basically, Wayland aims to become “X12”.
No, Wayland aims to fix many of those problems that are enumerated on that page. Of course it cannot fix all of them.The wiki you quoted contradicts it. Guess why.
Maintain Network Transparency
The future will be more interconnected and network-oriented, not less. Network transparency makes things easier for users and can't be considered an 'optional extra'.
Well, at least Wayland supports RDP natively.X12 needs to surely exist one day. As it stands, Linux / UNIX are vastly inferior to Microsoft's RDP and nothing else seems to be in development to solve that.
In the quoted wiki stays:As it stands, Linux / UNIX are vastly inferior to Microsoft's RDP and nothing else seems to be in development to solve that.
What is Good about X11
Network transparency. Network transparency rocks! Run a program on a remote system and interact with it on your local terminal; write a program and not need to care whether it's going to be run on a full workstation or a dumb terminal. Some may say this is unimportant, but when one looks at the development of Windows and the evolution of RDP, it starts to look a lot more like X in terms of its features.
No it doesn't. It sends a raster image of the entire desktop across! XDWell, at least Wayland supports RDP natively.
VNC is basically the fallback. It sends across an entire raster of the desktop (compresses, etc). It is very slow and simply not feasible for large resolutions. However, sometimes it is all we have left.And as far as I know, the following runs with X11, although I never tested it:
Virtual Network Computing - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
So I suppose the question is that why don't we develop something similar in technology to those Win32 / GDI primitives. Why are we faffing around with large breaking changes in Wayland and still not actually getting something worthwhile? Is there really no use-case for a decent remote desktop system these days?RDP fundamentally is a raster-based protocol, you won't be able to use it from your Unix desktop if it were instantiating Win32 / GDI primitives.
I think Windows needs it, because it is GUI oriented. For me it is enough to do ssh to a remote machine and get a shell.Is there really no use-case for a decent remote desktop system these days?
Yes, that could well be true. Perhaps one day if the next generation of GUI-only guys comes in, then we might see an actual replacement to X11.I think Windows needs it, because it is GUI oriented. For me it is enough to do ssh to a remote machine and get a shell.
I'd be interested in a solution with native awareness of text and, say, svg images (if only to see how it performs), but that is difficult to pull off in Linux world of multiple infighting UI toolkits. There is some overlap with accessibility needs, so corresponding APIs might be worth looking into.So I suppose the question is that why don't we develop something similar in technology to those Win32 / GDI primitives. Why are we faffing around with large breaking changes in Wayland and still not actually getting something worthwhile?
Do you have any? I mean something that is not handled by a web UI (those can be very efficient if done right) or an H.265 stream of entire desktop?Is there really no use-case for a decent remote desktop system these days?
That would be raster + batched (as opposed to RPC) vector graphics.RDP has a concept of a Window and the GDI primitives so isn't raster based. So if it isn't network transparent, and it doesn't seem to be just raster-based.. What would you call it?