Wayland or MIR!

I'm not sure about MIR--it seems to only be used in Ubuntu's Unity desktop, meaning that none of the other desktop environments or window managers use it. As for Wayland, Fedora's made it default, but only for their Gnome environment, and judging from their forums, it's still rather buggy. So, I suspect that it's going to be quite awhile before FreeBSD replaces xorg, which, obsolete or not, works well for millions, with Wayland or Mir, which are, at present, apparently, somewhat limited in where they are easily used. At this point, I would guess the average FreeBSD user who makes use of X would prefer them to stay with the less likely to break unexpectedly xorg. :)


https://wiki.freebsd.org/Graphics/Wayland mentions some work being done on Wayland--if you google a bit, no doubt there is more info about Wayland on FreeBSD out there. It seems to me (from casual reading only) that only Ubuntu is working on Mir, and I suspect they'll abandon it for Wayland.
 
Looks like here meet members with some kind of disorientation. It is a disability in which the senses of time (I had to check my calendar twice), direction, and recognition of things, people and places (I thought I stumbled into the wrong forum) become difficult to distinguish/identify.

Mostly these kind of disorientation is temporary and goes away. For the elderly some gadgets like watches and compasses are known to be helpful in all days life.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: Oko
fnoyanisi said:
What's wrong with xorg?
Click to expand...

There are a bunch of possible answers to that question. The long-and-short of it is that X11 is carrying around decades of cruft. It functions well enough, sure, and even if Wayland supersedes it in some capacities I imagine it will still be around for some time, since a lot of the lightweight stand-alone window managers don't need Wayland's fancy gimmicks. But X11 was released before PCs were a normal feature of most households, and to my knowledge has just sort of been patched up here and there in the meantime to keep it working rather than undergoing a major rewrite.
 
I wish I kept the link but just a few days ago I read a stackoverflow thread, I think, where it was outlined that X11 is just as fast, and even faster, at rendering graphics than Wayland and can do everything Wayland can so performance and capability is not a reason to switch to Wayland.

Now, please don't argue with me about it cause I'm too far removed from all that now and I don't recall what advantages Wayland brought to the table but it must be remembered that Wayland is a protocol and not a driver.
 
fnoyanisi said:
What's wrong with xorg?
Click to expand...

The biggest problem is that it still has most of the driver code running as part of a user space process. Not only does it violate everything that is taught in every computer engineering course about proper hardware abstractions it is allowed full unrestricted access to the kernel memory (in FreeBSD via the mem(4) device) because that's the only way to keep the performance acceptable for a driver running in a user space process. This is of course a reliability and security nightmare for very obvious reasons.
 
kpa said:
The biggest problem is that it still has most of the driver code running as part of a user space process. Not only does it violate everything that is taught in every computer engineering course about proper hardware abstractions it is allowed full unrestricted access to the kernel memory (in FreeBSD via the mem(4) device) because that's the only way to keep the performance acceptable for a driver running in a user space process. This is of course a reliability and security nightmare for very obvious reasons.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I was not across deep design details of xorg, that was useful for me.

My point was; porting a software as big as Wayland requires a good deal of resource and I am not sure whether or not there are enough people who can dedicate their time and effort on porting Wayland (unless xorg becomes totally nonfunctional),
 
obsigna said:
Anyway, her is a link to a funny reading: The X-Window System Disaster
Click to expand...

Corrected the noob (not yours) mistake :p

Edit: Both terms X-Windowing and X-Window System have been used but initially nobody called it "X-Windows", that came later when MS-Windows started to gather more steam and people started calling X as "X-Windows" because they just assumed it's just another "Windows".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top