LibreOffice Ported To Run On Wayland 216
An anonymous reader writes: LibreOffice has lost its X11 dependency on Linux and can now run smoothly under Wayland. LibreOffice has been ported to Wayland by adding GTK3 tool-kit support to the office suite over the past few months. LibreOffice on Wayland is now in good enough shape that the tracker bug has been closed and it should work as well as X11 except for a few remaining bugs. LibreOffice 5.0 will be released next month with this support and other changes outlined by the 5.0 release notes.
What's the point? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Downsides: 1. you lose remote access (save for second-class stuff like VNC), 2. you need to port most software or use X emulation. Upsides: ... [crickets] ...
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of Linux users don't use or need the remote features of X. They want a responsive and consistent GUI. Dump all that legacy shit meant for the days of thicknet runs and AUI transceivers. We don't have framebuffers and fixed frequency monitors anymore either.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The majority of Linux users don't use or need the remote features of X
Since most people don't use it, then just screw the people who do? Is that what you're saying? Hey, might as well burn the compiler too, and who really needs Samba? Get rid of all that nasty IPv6 code too, it's bloated and almost no one uses it.
Saying "most people don't use it, so we can get rid of it" is moronic. You are the problem with the world.
Re: (Score:2)
How did you feel when Windows 7 x64 no longer ran 16 bit applications? Make the remote features into a module. Right now its slow and hobbled together with decades of legacy code.
OpenSSL (Score:2)
How did all that legacy code work for OpenSSL? Oh yeah it was a fucking mess that everyone here installed while spouting off about open source and simultaneously not reading a single line of its code. Once the OpenBSD team took a look they started gutting legacy bullshit. Oh yeah we really need OS/2 and VMS support! While I was a fan of both those operating systems I realize their retirement had long passed.
Re:OpenSSL (Score:4, Insightful)
How did all that legacy code work for OpenSSL?
OpenSSL's problems had nothing to do with 'legacy code.' If legacy code were a problem, then OpenBSD would be in trouble, because there's plenty of really old code in there. OpenSSL had problems because they wrote shitty code.
Re: (Score:2)
Code size is related to attack surface. Shitty code and big code are not mutually different ideas. Maintaining well written code with lots of legacy cruft is just as difficult as maintaining poorly written but small and lean code. This is one of the reasons the Libre team started by ripping out all the support for cross platforms before they even started cleaning up the stuff that was important.
Re: (Score:2)
Code size is related to attack surface.
Yup.
Shitty code and big code are not mutually different ideas.
When someone decides to rewrite a project from scratch, it's prima facie a bad idea. Which is why the Libre team didn't do that. They kept the old interface, and even some of the code.
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of Linux users don't use or need the remote features of X. They want a responsive and consistent GUI. Dump all that legacy shit meant for the days of thicknet runs and AUI transceivers. We don't have framebuffers and fixed frequency monitors anymore either.
Then the "majority" can run the system of their choice.
There are four major failings in your logic: you conflates users (at a keyboard and mouse, on a box they own) with instances of Linux; you overlook the reality of available choices by conflating a new choice with the removal of choices; you conflate the need for new with the necessity for everything old needing to be updated (plenty of 10+ year old software running in situations that don't need to change); you are ignorant of the nature of Open Source d
Re: (Score:2)
Minus apple? Apple has a remote desktop product. It's even VNC compatible!
Re:What's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, remote desktop rocks. But they also are superior to X. For example, if your network connection burps, you don't lose your f'in work. Because the app runs locally and is displayed remotely and is completely independent on the network.
Sure remote X is great, I use it all the time. But I'm also aware that if I start a long-running process, I need to use screen to keep it alive, because now I'm depending on three things - the Linux machine hosting the app, the network, and my desktop PC showing me the app. That's a recipe for fragility in the whole thing.
Perhaps you don't use remote X for things that take hours to run, or don't mind losing all your work because you forgot to save and now the network connection reset. That's fine and great. But some people do, and really, X is pretty deficient compared to the rest of the remote desktop protocols out there. Even VNC.
Remote X is great, but it's time to modernize it and put features that every other remote desktop system has.
Re: (Score:2)
Unix/X/Linux/etc. got to where it is today by offering powerful tools that other systems did not. Seamless remote display technology is one of those tools.
Yeah, Mac OSX can run X windows very nicely as an application process, just like the wayland desktop.
Re: (Score:2)
Downsides: 1. you lose remote access (save for second-class stuff like VNC), 2. you need to port most software or use X emulation. Upsides: ... [crickets] ...
Performance, battery life, innovation.
(And if you haven't noticed, X remote access is already second-class to thinks like RDP and SPICE.)
Re: (Score:2)
Spice is pretty crappy (after really wanting to like it for a while). I hear rumor that RDP can be decent, but thus far I've not seen examples of it doing remote application access in a seamless way.
My personal example of how seamless remote applications can work well is Xpra. Despite it's current marriage to X, the strategy used does not use the 'remote' capabilities of X and the concept translates directly to something like Wayland. It intercepts things at the compositor layer rather than remote X call
Re: (Score:2)
RDP can do seamless remote applications, but you have to have a Terminal Server to use it. It's not available, AFAICT, from the basic version.
Re: (Score:2)
It is about the *seamless* version, not the full remote desktop version.
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest looking at xpra. X and even NX I didn't have a lot of fun with, but Xpra has treated me well. The kicker is that the Xpra strategy concept translates to an architecture like Wayland (it captures applications via compositor interface and contextual data through window manager calls).
I have to side with those that say X's inherent network protocols are less interesting. The unfortunate fact is that everyone then cites things like SPICE and typical RDP configurations and VNC, rather than something
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, being second-class is far preferable to being THIRD-CLASS like crap they have in MacOS. THAT is what you get when you casually dismiss the idea of the whole "remote X" thing. You end up with something that's total garbage and is unusable even on a Gigabit LAN.
WTF are you talking about???
1. Apple has a very nice VNC client built in
2. Apple has supported X windows longer than just about anybody else. I use their X server all the time and it works well.
3. Microsoft ships a very good quality remote desktop client for OSX, it works much better than any Linux remote desktop software.
4. Wayland has remote display technology that works much better than X
5. I use this stuff regularly over a crappy wifi connection and it all works great.
Re: (Score:2)
Upsides:
You don't have to listen to gamerz whine anymore when an occasional CPU cycle is used for something other than rendering cartoon hookers in GTA.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most Wayland-compatible applications would likely not render things by directly communicating with the Wayland protocol. Instead, they will likely use a higher-level UI toolkit. Toolkits like GTK+ and Qt are able to switch between Wayland and X11 based on which server they detect to be available. If you need to run a Wayland-compatible application from a server to which you are logged in via ssh, you would likely be able to do so as long as X11 compatibility is retained. As long as there is no convenient w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you miss the GTK+ 3.0 drama?
The GNOME idiots have been making it a point to break compatibility and remove "old" (aka "working", "currently used") features. You are delusional if you think they will continue supporting X once they declare the Wayland version to be "standard".
Of course, they'll probably use their typical victim-blaming approach where claim that keeping the old version around is "too much work" that should be done by someone else.
Re: (Score:3)
>"The GNOME idiots have been making it a point to break compatibility and remove "old" (aka "working", "currently used") features. You are delusional if you think they will continue supporting X once they declare the Wayland version to be "standard"."
BINGO!!!! +1000
And then other projects will marginalize their X ports too, perhaps LibreOffice, perhaps Firefox, who knows. But at some point there will be no way to continue to really run a full-blown X11 workstation, and that *SUCKS*. Because rest assur
Re: (Score:2)
1. I suggest looking at Xpra. It's married to X, but is far better than X or NX at seamless remote applications. It's also an example of exactly the sort of remote experience that *could* be done within a Wayland context. The problem obviously being I had to point out something married to X as an example, rather than knowing off hand something that pulls off the same in Wayland, but the concepts are pretty sound.
Re: (Score:2)
Downsides: 1. you lose remote access (save for second-class stuff like VNC), 2. you need to port most software or use X emulation. Upsides: ... [crickets] ...
I'm having trouble seeing why your post was marked troll. Funny, maybe. Insightful, more like it. Clearly not a troll. what on earth is going on with mods in this thread?
Re:What's the point? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
>This statement is fundamentally crap. Every day I run multiple kde 4 applications on multiple systems back to a single desktop with ssh. The applications are not degraded and I don't have to disable any X11 features to do it.
If I had mod points, I would mod you up AND the parent of your reply down.
We use remote X even when it is not remote- thin clients. X11 works great both locally and remotely. I do wish that there was an X12 effort rather than the attempt to throw X completely away... which I am qu
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, after this thread I have no further interest in Wayland unless it gets network transparency.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, after this thread I have no further interest in Wayland unless it gets network transparency.
It's unlikely you'll have to worry about it unless you decide to run Ubuntu (Ewebuntu?). My 2c - Wayland may be interesting for the "average desktop user" (WTF that is) and mobile phones. Some people that use Ubuntu say "debian package" and that get conflated with debian packages in Debian. Chances of Debian dropping X any-time soon are likely the same as those of X remaining usable (X's chances are pretty good as long as Keith Packard and Peter Hutterer live, and if they die there's always Ken Graunke, Mat
Re: (Score:2)
I do the same thing with an RDP session and everything runs fine too. Network transparency is not the be-all-and-end-all of technologies, and it certainly is not the only way to get programs working across the network.
I would be very interested in knowing if you could even tell the difference between a program that is sending remote drawing commands vs a program that is capturing the frame buffer. I'm willing to bet that you are using network-transparent programs and programs that are falling back via some
Re: (Score:2)
I've been using X since it was X10, that includes all levels of programming from bare Xlib up. I've never written a server extension, but I have worked on the Matrox mga Linux kernel module just enough to make it work on IBM RS-6000 systems (you can grep for my last name in the kernel source if you care to check). I've also done a bit of messing about with the Doom3 sources to make it work better with Xiner
Re: (Score:2)
This sort of thing has been supported quite possibly since before you were born.
That's the thing about something that's "old and icky" and not "new shiny shiny".
Re: (Score:2)
This sort of thing has been supported quite possibly since before you were born.
"Supported"??? Hah, we tried running SGI OpenGL apps over the network, we got kernel panics. No support, no nuthin. It never worked, we used other technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody was talking about SGI.
Re: (Score:2)
-if a little slowly- for me ten years ago on commodity hardware running RHEL.
3-D applications have performance requirements, so in other words, it didn't work for you either.
Re: (Score:2)
I will need to dismiss your nonsensical nonsense as nonsense. Henceforth, could you please consider writing words that may withstand an iota of logical scrutiny? Specifically: "works" means "functions". Please keep your own private definition of "works" to yourself.
If you want to improve the poor performance, start with a faster net connection. Then get busy fixing the code, which is broken but not unfixably broken.
OK, over to you. Expecting yet another downclue from you.
Re: (Score:2)
-if a little slowly- for me ten years ago on commodity hardware running RHEL.
3-D applications have performance requirements, so in other words, it didn't work for you either.
It only doesn't work if you make up constraints that don't exist. For me, when I made up no fictional constraints, it worked as expected.
Re: (Score:2)
you will be able to do the same from your wayland desktop, just like you can do it from your OSX desktop or your Windows desktop. Just install an X server app and away you go.
Re: (Score:2)
>"you will be able to do the same from your wayland desktop, just like you can do it from your OSX desktop or your Windows desktop. Just install an X server app and away you go."
We have heard that before. And I will believe it when I see it actually working, and working correctly in the real world, and with network performance at least as good as X, and working with *all* Xclients.
Tell me, how would one manage thin client machines that run ONLY an Xserver and use XDMCP? And also when that user has Xcli
Re: (Score:2)
Worked fine for me, 10 minutes ago. I suspect that there is FUD afoot. Possibly even *self serving* FUD. From the "my shiny is teh better" crowd.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
O brave and omniscient anonymous coward, brave indeed behind that keyboard, unlike you I actually tried, using my own OpenGL app and it worked, though slow over the crappy wifi. Even the shaders worked. Knock me over with a feather.
I don't suppose you have what it takes to admit that you were wrong. Obviously, anybody can repeat this experiment.
Re: (Score:2)
correct they broke X by adding features which did not conform to the basic principle of X. They should have started earlier. Anyway, Wayland provides a basic API and on top a new better remote system can be implemented. VNC is not a solution like X. HTML5 is more like that even though nobody is running a browser as desktop engine.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
correct they broke X by adding features which did not conform to the basic principle of X.
You are aware that the basic principles of X are that you have a monochrome screen or a 8-bit color screen with a lookup table, no acceleration, no sound, and the only allowed input device is a three button mouse?
If you are not doing all of those things then you are not conforming to the basic principles of X. 24 bit color? That doesn't conform to the basic principles of X. Sound? Ditto. Outline fonts? Totally in violation of the X principles. A screen saver that has actual security? Nope, that's no
Re:What's the point? (Score:5, Interesting)
Beside your tone, you also missed the point. X11 is a graphical terminal technology where an application sends UI draw information to a server which renders it into graphic memory which is finally displayed on a screen. All input is collected and transmitted to the application. The server understands a simple protocol based on graphical primitives including fonts. In later years the font feature got extended, but the principle was not violated by that extension. The problem started when people wanted to use 3D and watch videos. Also audio was outside of the scope of X11 and of course printing. The addition of video required direct hardware access to be fast enough (especially in the late 1990s and early 2000s). Therefore, stuff like DRI where realized, which broke with the X11 principle that an application sends drawing information to the server which then does all the graphic stuff.
I hope that clears things up.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem started when people wanted to use 3D and watch videos. Also audio was outside of the scope of X11 and of course printing. The addition of video required direct hardware access to be fast enough (especially in the late 1990s and early 2000s). Therefore, stuff like DRI where realized, which broke with the X11 principle that an application sends drawing information to the server which then does all the graphic stuff.
I hope that clears things up.
So in other words, X11 is not designed for the modern desktop and it's only there at all thanks to some terrible hacks.
Re: (Score:3)
You are aware that X has an extension system, right? Or are you just leaving that part out in an attempt to pretend that the backwards compatible development style of X for some reason requires that no new features have been added? Also, your nonsense about ancient versions of X providing features similar to the limitations of ancient hardware have nothing whatsoever to do with the basic principles of the X Window System.
Supporting new features does not require removing old features - they are simply moved
Re: (Score:2)
X (and good engineering practices)
Every time X windows gets a code audit, the auditors run away screaming at the poor quality of the code.
https://media.ccc.de/browse/congress/2013/30C3_-_5499_-_en_-_saal_1_-_201312291830_-_x_security_-_ilja_van_sprundel.html#video
X Server Security Disaster: "It's Worse Than It Looks"
they are simply moved into "extensions"
Where the code is neglected and allowed to accumulate security problems, because "nobody uses it" and "nobody tests it" even though it is still in the product.
This by the way is TERRIBLE engineering practice.
X windows is a total
Re: (Score:2)
Every time X windows gets a code audit, the auditors run away screaming at the poor quality of the code.
Which is not a reason to create a new windowing system. It's a reason to clean up the code (or in the worst case, rewrite it, which would keep the interfaces the same).
The times when you have to break compatibility for the sake of security are very rare.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm even fine with changes that break existing software if it is required to fix a security issue. Unfortunately, we have people confusing design with implementation, and even more that follow the Not Invented Here principle. Anybody in that camp may want to read "Things You Should Never Do [joelonsoftware.com]" by Joel Spolsky.
When programmers see an old, messy project they tend to want to rewrite it. They see that mess and believe they know how it could "obviously" be simplified. Usually, this is incorrect, as the simplified
Re: (Score:2)
we have people confusing design with implementation
Well said.
Re: (Score:2)
(or in the worst case, rewrite it, which would keep the interfaces the same).
Yeah, they are re-writing X windows, and keeping the interfaces the same. Under Wayland, X windows is just another application program. It will run with no noticeable difference for anyone who cares.
For those who don't want this security nightmare on their systems, they don't have to install X windows.
Re: (Score:2)
For those who don't want this security nightmare on their systems, they don't have to install X windows.
Or Wayland. As long as choices remain, and they do, there is no problem - except in the minds of fanbois. I have no problem with the idea of replacing redundant parts of system architecture. The nature of all software development (with the obvious exception of qmail) is that if it gets enough use it develops to the point where it becomes easier to replace it than rebuilt it (of course the new style of programming and project development will stop that, and we may have flying cars soon). AFAIK no re-impleme
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, they are re-writing X windows, and keeping the interfaces the same
Seriously? Now you're just talking like a politician.
Re: (Score:2)
1. you lose remote access
The X.org guys have said themselves this isnt true of X.org anymore...
Then the correct response would be to fix that lameness instead of making it more lame. Somebody lacking the requisite design skills?
Re:What's the point? (Score:5, Informative)
But something is better than nothing. Currently wayland is only offering the latter.
Your comment is two years out of date, Wayland has offered remote protocol since 2013 in the main branch, further its expected to be better supported than X11 (ie perfect alpha blending on shading at 60fps over a network link) all while using less resources than X11 and without degrading features.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:What's the point? (Score:5, Informative)
As an actual user, not just a developer talking about protocols try actually setting that up and using it. Supposedly that code is in the main branch but there is ZERO documentation about how to make it work. From what I have heard one of the developers wrote it in order to try to shut up all the people who were rightly complaining that a major feature from X was being taken away. Once he had a single demo it then went by the wayside. Does that code even work any more? Who knows, how would one even find out?
As far as I can tell remote Wayland was developed only far enough to be a publicity stunt and doesn't really exist in a usable state.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can tell remote Wayland was developed only far enough to be a publicity stunt and doesn't really exist in a usable state.
That's very true, not just as you can tell. They came out and actively said so. They have always considered the ability to remote to be a client problem for someone to implement if required. They gave an example to shut up the people who said it can't be done and then proceeded to go back to what they considered more important.
Now what really bakes my noodle is if this is an open source project, and open source linux developers really care about this support then why doesn't someone step up and maintain it.
Re: (Score:3)
Keep in mind this is pretty low level stuff. We aren't talking about coding yet another mp3 player (which is just a frontend for lame). We are talking about hardware drivers, video backend stuff, network protocols... I am a 'developer' myself but I would have absolutely no idea where to even begin working on something like this. Just listening to the Wayland developers talk about the internals of X vs Wayland and why Wayland is better gets me lost after a paragraph or two at most.
The population out there
Re: (Score:3)
A respectful comment from the anti-Wayland side! Well done.
Anyway the reality is that Wayland guys wanted to get a prototype working to make sure there weren't any problems with remote... i.e. in theory a remote system could meet Wayland's "every frame is perfect". They don't actually care if in reality the frames are even visible for end users right now. That is the need it to work as essentially a unit test they don't need it to work right now for end user.
They do agree remote usage is an important fea
Re: (Score:2)
Just don't pretend Linux is a unix clone anymore.
So you need X windows to be a Unix workstation? OSX would like a word with you
Re: (Score:2)
I wish Linus Torvalds had stood-up to Lennart Poettering and made it abundantly clear GNU/Linux and specifically the Linux kernel will never support systemd and other garbage.
It's actually been the other way around. The Linux kernel has implemented lots of features for a long time which almost no one used, it wasn't until systemd when that stuff actually started to get used.
It is getting to the point where Apple Mac OS X despite its limitations and crippled nature are beginning to look like a better option. Even the Google Chromebook looks better at times. As a long-time GNU/Linux user since 1992 the current direction of GNU/Linux saddens me.
If you want a traditional UNIX system then the last thing you should look at is probably OS X. If that's what you want then OpenBSD or FreeBSD is probably a better alternative for you, or even one of the OpenSolaris descendents.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It removed pesky features (such as remote display). Features like that ruin the simple appearance of pre-internet technology that is all the rage today.
-- ok, I have heard that one of the Wayland developers did some sort of remote display testing but as far as I can tell you have to pull his personal git fork, build it yourself and you get no documentation if you want to try to use it.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're a standard Ubuntu user you probably won't notice much, because it's the developers getting gray hairs from X. They work around all the shitty problems so it works for you, just like users felt IE6 worked fine.
The main issue is how rendering is done on modern applications/desktops:
1. The client draws everything into a bitmap using its own tools
2. The client passes it via X to the compositor, which puts it together
3. The compositor passes it via X to the hardware, which draws it
So X does not do a wh
Re: (Score:3)
Lots of blocking calls
Like what? the X protocol and the low level binding xcb are fully asynchronus.
poor synchronization (tearing)
I've heard the claim that Wayland will magically solve tearing. I only seem to get tearing when running two monitors (I've not seen single monitor tearing in years). Those two monitors are running at different frame rates, marginally. Your're either going to get tearing or awful juddering.
support for multiple monitors and input devices with hotplugging
Works fine for me...? I can
Re: (Score:2)
What does Wayland solve for me, a standard Ubuntu user? What I have wordks ok, why does it need to change?
I hear LibreOffice has a spell checker.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you ever been annoyed by users of *nix systems that are less popular than Linux? Then have no fear; Wayland is an effort to kill off those platforms.
You see, first you reduce X on Linux to the sort of second-class status that it has on OS X. So then people switch their development for Linux to Wayland. So then they stop maintaining an X version of their app (even if the toolkit they're using supports both X and Wayland), since it costs them resources for such a tiny fragment of people. Then, since
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever been annoyed by users of *nix systems that are less popular than Linux? Then have no fear; Wayland is an effort to kill off those platforms.
blah blah blah
And then all those people using *BSD or Solaris are up shit creek without a paddle.
Short memories forget that Solaris used to have its own window system, and they switched to X windows due to popular demand at the time. No doubt they could switch again.
And the vast majority of BSD systems are running the OSX window system, so a decline in X windows is not going to affect them much.
instead of developing such a system for all *nix systems?
Many linux features exist because they made their own versions of BSD features. BSD did not go out of their way to support them. Nobody is stopping the BSD people from writing their own. In fac
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's the point? (Score:4, Informative)
In fact, not wanting to give up on "proper hardware acceleration" is the number one reason I despise Wayland.
Lies, lies, lies, yeah:
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=mtgxmde
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Isn't that supposed to be what sophisticated code reuse concepts from CIS 101 are supposed to be for?
Only the X developers should be whining about the burdens of coding X.
Re: (Score:3)
Only the X developers should be whining about the burdens of coding X.
Says someone who has clearly never written an application for X Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Says someone who has clearly never written an application for X Windows.
I have. It's not that hard. The X protocol is pretty sane for a low level protocol. I rather like it.
Re: (Score:2)
X code is basically unmaintainable. There is a ton of code on X that nobody uses but needs to be maintained on every little change you may add. This slows development to almost at stall.
This the big reason to drop X windows.
If you have unmaintainable code, it's probably loaded with security problems, too.
Every time anyone touches the X code looking for security problems, it's like opening a cockroach nest.
Re: (Score:2)
"If you need anything X of the above, or want to keep using xfwm, wayland already has a X-window server, so you can keep using it."
Which will mean squat if applications eventually stop supporting X.
"X network layer is super inefficient sending frames"....
so. It's always better than nothing and actually not bad over a LAN. As a developer you may be able to pick apart a million things it is doing wrong but as a user all I see is something that works verses something that doesn't even offer the same function
Re: (Score:2)
VNC vs X is apples vs oranges.
Exactly, X windows runs at a very low level in your computer so any security issues result in easy root access for the attacker. Yes indeed you have a program that has direct memory access to your computer's hardware, it runs as root, it has an open listening socket, and it's chock full of security bugs. There is no comparison at all, X is a screaming disaster waiting to happen.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't speak for Debian, but Fedora has it available at least for Gnome in F21 and F22, and they're trying to make it the default under F23. You could create a live-boot USB drive to test it out on your hardware.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
When the fuck will Wayland be usable on my system?
when you find someone competent to install it for you
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks, Fran. You've just made the entire open source community look like a bunch of useless assholes once again. Here we have a user asking a legitimate question, and instead of just answering the question you treat that user like dirt. And people wonder why The Year of Linux on the Desktop is always "next year". Normal people don't like being treated like crap, regardless of whether it's because the open source software they're being subjected to is broken, or whether it's because they're being treated te
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Thanks, Fran. You've just made the entire open source community look like a bunch of useless assholes once again. Here we have a user asking a legitimate question, and instead of just answering the question you treat that user like dirt.
Duh, when it's ready to go, it's ready to go. When it's not ready to go, it's not ready to go. No amount of hand waving and
Normal people don't like being treated like crap
Since when do "normal" people compile debian packages from scratch?
Wayland too will remain a niche product, all thanks to people like you
Yeah, wayland will fail because I posted on slashdot! World domination is MINE!
Re: (Score:3)
The Wayland fanboys are certainly in full force today upvoting any mindless worship and downvoting anyone with a contrary opinion.
BTW, a contrary opinion is not trolling.
That's something else you know if you're an "old neckbeard".
Re: (Score:2)
This reminds me of why I defected to a package based distribution back in the 90s. I was trying to install GNUstep and got bogged down in building all of the dependencies.
No. If there aren't usable Debian packages for it then no one should even be talking about it yet. All of you blithering fanboys should just keep your collective trap shut until something that's remotely of some use emerges.
Until then it's a misguided fantasy (at best) and vaporware.
Re: (Score:2)
Unstable is fairly conservative about the bleeding edge.
Pick a different distro if you want to try Wayland or, say, KDE5.
Re: (Score:2)
Except it will change when Ubuntu moves to Mir by default.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm very much looking forward to Wayland, which allegedly is the main requirement for nVidia implementing proper (dynamic) optimus support.
That sounds rather dubious to me to be honest, given that X11 passes OpenGL commands to the DRM layer, which then does all the state tracking and everything. In fact for local programs, the calls don't even get serialised.
Re:What's the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
We didn't spend the last 20 years building LINUX for your kind. Kindly fuck off and buy a Micro$haft "xbox" if you want to "game".
Linus Torvalds:
"I love the Steam announcements – I think that's an opportunity to really help the desktop," he said, speaking at LinuxCon in Edinburgh.
Will it also run on... (Score:2)
Yutani? I am sure they are in it together. And they know all about the aliens on LV426 - the bastards.
Main links hijacked by ads (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
X is not going away (Score:2)
You will still be able to run X windows apps on your wayland desktop: fire up an X server, just like you would do on OSX or Windows.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure you can run X apps on Wayland.. For now...
Then distros will suddenly standardize on Wayland. Soon after X versions of applications will not be available. Then.. bye bye remote display. Were you still using that? If so then you are just a neck beard who is afraid of change and was holding up progress so that some poor kid's video game ran a couple of FPS slower. Your features don't matter but the gamer's needs do matter. I guess that makes sense seeing that video games are the only life many of those s
Re: (Score:2)
Soon after X versions of applications will not be available. Then.. bye bye remote display.
Really? So X windows is going to disappear entirely because linux decides to improve its display technology?
And it's going to take RDP and VNC with it? And what about the native wayland remote display protocol? All going away? No more remote displays???
Re: (Score:2)
You will still be able to run X windows apps on your wayland desktop: fire up an X server, just like you would do on OSX or Windows.
Yeah and running X11 apps on Wayland will be just as shit an experience as it is on OSX and Windows too. It's been a while, but last time I tried, copy/paste was limited to text, drag and drop didn't work, keymapping didn't work properly and a whole host of other issues.
Oh and the X11 window manager wouldn't manage native windows. So either you use the crappy native WM, or have
Re: (Score:2)
You say you want X windows for its ability to run applications remotely.
copy/paste was limited to text, drag and drop didn't work, keymapping didn't work properly and a whole host of other issues.
This is the present reality when you try to do this, so things are not getting any worse if you are running remote apps.
So either you use the crappy native WM
I have no problems with the OSX window manager, it works fine for me.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the present reality when you try to do this, so things are not getting any worse if you are running remote apps.
That's outright untruthful. Copy/paste/DnD works via the x protocol, and as such is completely network transparent. If you disagree, prove it by quoting chapter and verse of the ICCCM or the XDND spec.
That is not an answer (Score:2, Troll)
Is Wayland dependent on systemd, or not?
Why accuse me of trolling if you don't even know?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, it is not dependent on systemd. You've posted this same comment before whenever Wayland comes up.
Grow the fuck up.