What is the future of X / X11?

Status
Not open for further replies.
rufwoof said:
If/when browsers provide their own gui/framebuffer as part of the browser so much the better
Click to expand...
Qt-based browsers should already support: Qt's GUI backend can be set via environment variable QT_QPA_PLATFORM. I'm not sure how Qt package is compiled now, but you can definitely build its framebuffer support. I built a Qt browser which perfectly works in Linux without X11 (as a part of a commercial project), will try to do the same in FreeBSD soon.
 
rufwoof said:
http is increasingly owned by google and with that so it deviates from Unix concepts of everything is a simple task that works well and is like a text file ... towards more windows like complexities (everything is a complex gui). So that you can be more easily/comprehensively profiled/monitored in order for advertisements and monetisation.
Click to expand...

Nice description. Are these methods and ads legal, by the way? It looks like to force users / people to be under manipulation, for using/buying given products.
 
I was reading on this some and it seems Weston has not hit ports yet and with its Linux-isms i wonder if it ever will.
Truthfully I like Xorg the way it is and I see no attempt to have x-forwarding at the Wayland level.
So newer is not always better.
Weston underwent 3 major version numbers in one year.
Is that what we really want? Linux churn.

8 August 2017 Weston 3.0.0 was released
9 April 2018 Weston 4.0.0 was released
24 August 2018 Weston 5.0.0 was released
 
I like to say that the programmes today are offering 1200 MegaBytes for mathematical computations (Graphs, CAS,...).
For maths, there are today huge applications which can do things, but well, users are "obliged" to have the disk really full of things. Texlive is also a good example, which can take about 1200 MB. Well.

I had fun with plotting a graph without anything. It is about 1 or 2 Mb only.
Simplicity is just not accepted by new *Windows-fan* programmers:
simplicity.png


Concerning X11 forward, it makes a good sense to have it for important operations, especially at a scientific level. There are two things *maybe* which aren't so much working together: sciences and business. Google tries hard to lock the user behing his web browser (needing a super PC, good high-speed internet connection, and user is locked forever for anything). Maybe it is useful to have X11 forward to display things from a Solaris server, doing all the computational job.

Nice to have x11 (still today)... but in future we will need SSD and super power computer to draw a pixel on the monitor ;)
 
I don't know the reason behind the widespread of PulseAudio in the systems.
I am sure that there are more log/scrapping things.

So why no one care about it? Everyone use Android or Apple phone.

If we use an Android phone, all is spied, logged, and known by "big blue".
 
sidetone said:
If someone said that 10 years ago, it would sound paranoid. Say it today, and it's reasonable.
Click to expand...

But, man, why is this today accepted?

Even large companies use today Microsoft Products, with all their spying things. Onedrive is most evil really.
 
I might be one of the very few that appreciates what PulseAudio was attempting to do.

Yes, it is poorly implemented and could be made simpler but being able to stream audio across a network along with visuals (aka VNC) is actually quite a useful thing to do in this "day and age of having to use VMs because hardware providers are a bunch of fsck(8)ers".

Where it went wrong is that it was implemented in a sloppy, awkward way with Linux in mind.
 
Phishfry said:
A vast majority of the populous are technophobes. We are becoming so lazy we need the car to drive itself.
Click to expand...

The main issue is in the close source way of the educating in computer sciences. We teach programmers to use ready made solutions.
The very first mistake is to teach young programmers to start their programming live with closed source software on a close source operating systems. >=90% of education is based on Microsoft. Mail servers...
 
Spartrekus said:
But, man, why is this today accepted?

Even large companies use today Microsoft Products, with all their spying things. Onedrive is most evil really.
Click to expand...
Everything those who don't respect others get away with is accepted. I said his statement is reasonable. It is not that it's accepted, but that they have the capability to do it, which is alarming enough, but in every case, it may be difficult to prove or disprove. It is a reasonable concern.

In software, I see bloatware as opportunities for malware. If something takes 14 hours to compile because of unneeded dependencies, as opposed to it takes 5 minutes, do you think they debugged that software, when they couldn't figure out they have 14 hours of compiling bloat, that wasn't needed? Remove one dependency, and that made a difference between 5 minutes and 14 hours, because that wanted to pull in an operating system and compiler on top of another existing operating system and compiler. Sure, the dependencies that took 5 minutes to compile can also have bugs and malware, that could be hidden for years or wouldn't ever get found, but at least it doesn't offer every opportunity available.

Hardware or ROM doesn't have this advantage of being able to sift through code or hardware circuitry (at least not now). The best that can be done is using an AM radio to detect hidden cameras, or transponders.
 
sidetone said:
Everything those who don't respect others get away with is accepted. I said his statement is reasonable. It is not that it's accepted, but that they have the capability to do it, which is alarming enough, but in every case, it may be difficult to prove or disprove. It is a reasonable concern.

In software, I see bloatware as opportunities for malware. If something takes 14 hours to compile because of unneeded dependencies, as opposed to it takes 5 minutes, do you think they debugged that software, when they couldn't figure out they have 14 hours of compiling bloat, that wasn't needed? Remove one dependency, and that made a difference between 5 minutes and 14 hours, because that wanted to pull in an operating system and compiler on top of another existing operating system and compiler. Sure, the dependencies that took 5 minutes to compile can also have bugs and malware, that could be hidden for years or wouldn't ever get found, but at least it doesn't offer every opportunity available.

Hardware or ROM doesn't have this advantage of being able to sift through code or hardware circuitry (at least not now). The best that can be done is using an AM radio to detect hidden cameras, or transponders.
Click to expand...

Programmers do not care that much that it runs slow. They rather rely on better hardware.
Since they do rely and use already made available libraries, they need to have better hardware.

I agree with you. But, actually, it is not that bad. When you have the source code, you can always bring the bloatware to cleaner state.

The issue starts when you cannot fix and touch the code to design it the way that you would like to have (source code not made available).
 
My PulseAudio rant was un-called for. But you asked so I delivered my opinion.
There is no know connection between Pulse Audio and any government agency.
Do remember where this software originates from. RedHat largest customer is the NSA.
This agencies job is to subvert all communications.
 
Last edited:
Phishfry said:
My PulseAudio rant was un-called for. But you asked so I delivered my opinion.
There is no know connection between Pulse Audio and any government agency.
Do remember where this software originates from. RedHat largest customer is the NSA.
This agencies job is to subvert all communications.
Kangaroo courts are no challenge to these wordsmiths.
Click to expand...

I cannot really understand, why Linux does use This NSA, might be, PulseAudio, Systemd,.. and that they can enter the Linux distribution(s). Actually most of them. Developers say that they do better and bring better. At which cost?
Gnome, RedHat,... large companies, but not so much with free software "Freedom" in mind and Unix.
 
Wayland will go nowhere due to its lame name - lol
If they called it "Wayout", it would, at least, make a good hypetek brand name :)
X* and Xorg sound more solid, intriguing, dangerous and mysterious, like Darknet, and all the *Cons. X* will endure and run forever in my outdated systems to provide multicolor display - heh
 
Correct me if I am wrong, as I discover the subject few days ago...
X11 is a protocol (Old protocol, so stable and solid, as Ethernet or HTTP...)
XOrg is the main (not the only, but alternative seems dead or too light) implementation of this protocol.

XOrg has a lot of old code / dependency / bad pratice that developer can not handle. (Wayland arguments)

So, as I am cartesian, I assume that a new implmentation of X11 (OpenX11 or FreeX11 ... :D ) will appear to replace XOrg as XFree86 was replaced before.

My argument is very basic :If XOrg can not use latest graphic cards or create bad artefact when we move a window, I really doubt this rules are in the protocol.
 
Is it good to remove the X11 Forward by having xwayland? If we go to Wayland in BSD, BSD is no longer interesting for usage as main desktop.

In fact, I hope that BSD will not become a sort of Linux, and it will keep X11 so much. If we have no X11 or no x11 forward, it really makes little sense to use Unix opensource.

We *must* protect and preserve X11/Xorg against Wayland.
 
I could never get that personally involved in debate over Xorg vs. Wayland, gtk, pluseaidio, etc. Maybe due to my own ignorance but if it works the way I like it to I'm happy. Change is not always good, as in www/firefox Quantum.

Speak of the Devil and up Intel Management Engine pops.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top