MeeGo Being Ported To Wayland

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MeeGo Being Ported To Wayland

Posted by Unknown on Friday May 27, 2011 @09:15AM from the netcraft-confirms-x11-is-dying dept.

An anonymous reader writes "From the MeeGo SF2011 conference this week it was disclosed that MeeGo may ship the Wayland Server with the tablet version of the MeeGo 1.3 operating system for release in October." A reasonably annotated version of the presentation slides. Unfortunately video of the talk is not yet available.

76 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Here he comes... Cue ominous music! by killfixx · 2011-05-27 09:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

Kristian Høgsberg has been at the forefront for a while now. Imagine pulling an Apple/MS/Linux coup. "Subvert the dominant paradigm." That was my favorite saying (20 years ago). I'm happy to see ANYONE doing it. X has been the "paradigm" for so long that no one WANTED to challenge it. Kudos Kristian.

--
"Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
1. Re:Here he comes... Cue ominous music! by Ynot_82 · 2011-05-27 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  Hate to break it to you, but it's not
  http://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html#heading_toc_j_0
  
  Why fork the X server?
  It's not an X server and not a fork. It's a protocol between a compositor and its clients
2. Re:Here he comes... Cue ominous music! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  Wow I don't think it's possible to be more wrong.
3. Re:Here he comes... Cue ominous music! by jedidiah · 2011-05-27 09:43 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  > Hate to break your bubble, but wayland is an X server.
  No it isn't. Wayland is a rallying point for X-haters and is an attempt to specifically dump X.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
4. Re:Here he comes... Cue ominous music! by David+Gerard · 2011-05-27 10:03 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  >Wayland is a rallying point for X developers and is an attempt to specifically dump X.
  Fixed that for you. Everyone working on Wayland is an X.org dev. They know what they're trying to kill off.
  Oh, and Wayland will also have an X server.
  
  --
  http://rocknerd.co.uk
5. Re:Here he comes... Cue ominous music! by serviscope_minor · 2011-05-27 10:50 · Score: 2
  
  Fixed that for you. Everyone working on Wayland is an X.org dev.
  Quite. That's the problem. They've been working on X for ages and are bored and fed up with it. It's time for them to move on. Which is fine, but it doesn't mean it's time to kill off X.
  They know what they're trying to kill off. Oh, and Wayland will also have an X server.
  This is one of the disingenuous arguments trotted out like clockwork every time. You can get X servers for Windows and OSX. They both suck compared to Linux because the X clients are always second class programsn and don't integrate properly. It will be the same with Wayland.
  Oh, and if they know what they're doing, then why the bone-headded decisions like making the *applications* paint windoe decoarions and be partially responsible for window management?
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
6. Re:Here he comes... Cue ominous music! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  "This is one of the disingenuous arguments trotted out like clockwork every time"
  This. The answer given by the Wayland people to remote X is always: "Well, just run an X server under wayland". They completely miss the point that this breaks the network transparency that is a critical and essential feature of Linux.
  People rely on this network transparency of X clients, and breaking it makes Wayland an non-starter. Unfortunately, if all Linux distros move to Wayland, that'll be the end of Linux as a viable platform for many of us.
  Running an X server in Wayland is NOT good enough.
7. Re:Here he comes... Cue ominous music! by DrXym · 2011-05-27 20:04 · Score: 1
  
  Quite. That's the problem. They've been working on X for ages and are bored and fed up with it. It's time for them to move on. Which is fine, but it doesn't mean it's time to kill off X.
  No they recognize the horrible kludges required to achieve modern effects like composition & video, the context switches that degrade performance, X'sstrictly 2D worldview which impedes coord translation & mapping, all the extensions, and all the redundant functionality that no modern dist uses. Then they reasonably ask why they even need X at all.
  
  This is one of the disingenuous arguments trotted out like clockwork every time. You can get X servers for Windows and OSX. They both suck compared to Linux because the X clients are always second class programsn and don't integrate properly. It will be the same with Wayland.
  Integrate with what now? If a dist goes with Wayland then most apps running over QT & GTK are going to run natively. It's not infeasible that GTK / QT could even detect when they're running locally or remotely and link to the appropriate wayland / X libs. That's pretty much all common apps right there. And for the remainder you can run X over the top or even contemplate some kind of limited X emulation layer. I assume Linux is in a far better position to make X run seamlessly than either OS X or Windows.
  I don't accept either that network transparency is a reason to not switch. Remote apps could still be served with X if necessary and arguably Wayland would provide the foundation for a vastly superior remote desktop experience than either NX or VNC could manage.
  Of course there is nothing to force you using Wayland. I expect even if it comes to pass that Ubuntu, Fedora or some other dist makes the leap that X will live for a long time yet.
8. Re:Here he comes... Cue ominous music! by dkf · 2011-05-27 21:18 · Score: 1
  
  Then they reasonably ask why they even need X at all.
  The answer to that is simple: there's a metric buttload of apps out there that talk X11 out the back. Many of those apps are commercial. Many of them use neither GTK nor Qt. Moving all that lot to some other protocol is really quite an enormous job (set of jobs really) and it's not at all clear that everyone has money to spend on what is largely perceived as busywork; snazzier compositing doesn't maintain a factory information system.
  But that's not to say that anyone much has a particular fondness for the X11 protocol or server as such. Building a new graphics engine and having a new interface to it is fine, as long as there's also an X11 interface. Heck, I could imagine the X interface being a bit restricted (e.g., no window manager access) and that not being a problem. There's even two levels that the interface could be at: the protocol level and the library level. (If code links to libX11, it doesn't care what the protocol actually looks like.) We should bear in mind also that it's already been shown that X works just fine when layered over the top of another system: this is how it is used on OSX and Windows after all, in the former case being supplied by Apple and in the latter as a third-party program. The X server as people currently know it can change; it has no truly special place in the overall picture.
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
9. Re:Here he comes... Cue ominous music! by MrHanky · 2011-05-27 21:37 · Score: 1
  
  They know what they're trying to kill off. Oh, and Wayland will also have an X server.
  This is one of the disingenuous arguments trotted out like clockwork every time. You can get X servers for Windows and OSX. They both suck compared to Linux because the X clients are always second class programsn and don't integrate properly. It will be the same with Wayland.
  Wayland is pretty much "X.org without X11" (plus some other stuff) -- that is, the most modern rendering technologies used by current X.org will also be used by Wayland: DRI, Mesa, Gallium3, etc. X.org and Wayland are integrated at the core.
  Sure, there will be inconsistencies between X apps and native apps, but it's not like people will be using X11 apps if they don't specifically need X11.
10. Re:Here he comes... Cue ominous music! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 22:36 · Score: 0
  
  Many of you?
  What... all fucking 5 people who use remote X? Wow... I'm scared. Hold me.
11. Re:Here he comes... Cue ominous music! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-28 01:58 · Score: 0
  
  The typical X server can be run on top of Wayland, and probably will be for those apps. However, Wayland developers are looking at network transparency _better_ than X by attempting to handle disconnections, taking high-latency, low-bandwidth links into account when designing the protocol extension, and supporting old X connections by running X on top.
12. Re:Here he comes... Cue ominous music! by serviscope_minor · 2011-05-28 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, there will be inconsistencies between X apps and native apps, but it's not like people will be using X11 apps if they don't specifically need X11.
  So, people like me who need X11 will be screwed over? Is that what you're trying to say?
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
13. Re:Here he comes... Cue ominous music! by MrHanky · 2011-05-28 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  Not quite, I'm just saying the rest of us don't care.
wow! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 09:20 · Score: 0, Funny

Two things I don't care about.
1. Re:wow! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 09:30 · Score: 0
  
  MeeGo: Wat
  Wayland: Wat
  MeeGo Being Ported To Wayland: Wat
2. Re:wow! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 10:13 · Score: 0
  
  If you share your field of expertise with us, I'm sure we will find suitable stories to submit to your attention.
  Bieber?
  Vampires?
  My mini pony?
  Nyan cat?
Not dead after all by elPetak · 2011-05-27 09:22 · Score: 1

it's good to see MeeGo ain't dead after mama Nokia cheated papa Intel with his friend Microsoft.
1. Re:Not dead after all by mickwd · 2011-05-27 09:41 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Yes, it is good to see that.
  However, this kind of thing is precisely why Nokia dropped Meego. Nokia is in the business of selling phones, not on some never-ending quest for the ultimate Linux UI without ever getting something out of the door.
  The mobile phone marketplace is very fast-moving. At some point, you need to stick with what already works, and polish it, instead of dropping it for the latest shiny instead.
  The tragedy with Nokia is that they were 90% there with Maemo. While their competitors surged ahead, they dropped Maemo and virtually started afresh with something about 10% ready instead.
2. Re:Not dead after all by pavon · 2011-05-27 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  Amen. Maemo looked really promising 5 years ago when the N770 shipped. It looked even better 3 years ago when the N810 shipped. Then just about time when they were going to start using it on mainstream smartphones, they changed direction and spent the last 3 years reinventing the wheel. Such a waste.
3. Re:Not dead after all by suy · 2011-05-27 10:03 · Score: 2
  
  If anything, Nokia is exactly the one to blame for doing that. They broke compatibility across Maemo releases (IIRC).
  In Maemo 5, when TrollTech and Qt was already in the company, they release the whole OS based on GTK+, but they say that the future is Qt (agreed), and release Qt 4.6 updates for the N900 with some specially crafted widgets for Maemo 5 integration. However, they are at the same time developing Qt Quick, which only appears in Qt 4.7, and yes, it's way better, but is yet another change for developers.
  The change to Wayland is transparent for developers. They are expected to write stuff in Qt, so they should not worry about that.
  Oh,and BTW, the next device from Nokia, is not MeeGo, is Harmattan (more or less Maemo 6). It's compatible WRT the API (uses Qt), but is still based on DEB, not RPM, so is not really MeeGo, and not binary compatible.
4. Re:Not dead after all by Microlith · 2011-05-27 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  this kind of thing is precisely why Nokia dropped Meego
  On the contrary, Nokia never got to MeeGo. They were part way with their Maemo-derived, MeeGo compatible device when Elop announced a wholesale shift to being (effectively) a Microsoft OEM.
  
  At some point, you need to stick with what already works, and polish it, instead of dropping it for the latest shiny instead.
  And had Nokia not stymied the group working on Maemo, then they would have gotten there, as you acknowledge. But in the end they would likely have gone MeeGo anyway, simply because building an entire OS internally is not terribly beneficial, when you can share the load across multiple companies (like Linux itself.)
5. Re:Not dead after all by elPetak · 2011-05-27 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  Well... maybe because they were 90% there with Maemo is that they were borged.
  Think about it from the MS perspective... borging nokia was prolly their last chance to gain marketshare in the smartfone market and it would have been lost forever if Maemo/MeeGo were to be succesfull.
6. Re:Not dead after all by knickerbocker · 2011-05-27 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  Maemo was just too old. It may have been 90% done, but it just wasn't a good competitor. The use of Flash being the number one mistake. The shift to Meego's UI was a great move. Clutter is very capable, and looked very pretty on Meego 1.0 for netbooks and would be a great performer for smaller, embedded systems where you have a GPU and UI is the primary use. You can debate the merits and deficiencies of the UI designs choices in Meego, but at the least the technology was solid and pretty. If anything Meego 1.0 was 90% done and she shift from Maemo was the good move. After this two bad things happened: 1) Intel tried to keep Meego development on their hardware, which limited work towards others (Read: ARM) and basically slowed chances of adoption. It was a greedy move that hurt the whole platform. 2) Nokia joined the project and basically threw out the Clutter based UI that was making real progress. Instead they brought in Qt and basically hit the big reset button on the whole project in order to get their brand up front. And then, they summarily jumped ship. WTF? Dropping Maemo was the good move in all of this. And Nokia never even gave Meego a chance.
7. Re:Not dead after all by BreezeC · 2011-05-27 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe nokia don't know how to do in the smartfone market. So nokia dropped meego.
8. Re:Not dead after all by BreezeC · 2011-05-27 14:52 · Score: 1
  
  Meego not dead. Maybe nokia is a loser.
9. Re:Not dead after all by Microlith · 2011-05-27 17:19 · Score: 1
  
  Intel tried to keep Meego development on their hardware, which limited work towards others (Read: ARM)
  Except development proceeded apace on both architectures. But Intel (obviously) didn't provide support for non-Intel platforms, even though they had no means nor right to block it.
  
  Instead they brought in Qt and basically hit the big reset button on the whole project in order to get their brand up front.
  They had been planning a shift to Qt some time before, and to a great degree it was a smart move due in no large part to how irritating using GLib and GTK+ are. Qt gives them a much better development environment that is available in a cross platform manner that GTK+ has never been able to offer.
10. Re:Not dead after all by MrHanky · 2011-05-27 21:54 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong. Nokia's solution to the ultimate Linux (and Symbian) UI is/was Qt, which is pretty much agnostic as to which rendering system it runs on, and which already does run on Wayland (so this future switch isn't exactly a surprise to them).
11. Re:Not dead after all by Gaygirlie · 2011-05-27 22:17 · Score: 1
  
  Maemo was just too old. It may have been 90% done, but it just wasn't a good competitor. The use of Flash being the number one mistake.
  I don't understand. Why would having Flash support in the browser be the biggest reason for why the OS itself wasn't good?
12. Re:Not dead after all by Mikkeles · 2011-05-27 23:15 · Score: 1
  
  'At some point, you need to stick with what already works, and polish it,...'
  Ah, yes; the Polished Turd process of software development; also known as Agile.
  
  --
  Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
13. Re:Not dead after all by elPetak · 2011-05-29 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  Nokia ruled the smartphone market globally with symbian for ages. I have a 5 year old symbian phone (N95) and it does everything (gps, nice camera, java, flash, accelerated 3D graphics, wifi, multitasking, etc, etc, etc).
  It was only in the US where symbian didn't have much acceptance, but if you consider the global market share then nokia was the ruler of the smartphone market until 2010 Q4 when android surpassed Symbian as the most common operating system in smartphones.
  MeeGo was never a player in the smartphone arena and Maemo was just a niche player.
  Too bad the borged nokia ditched symbian too :-(
  There are some interesting chars in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone#Operating_systems
14. Re:Not dead after all by exomondo · 2011-05-29 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  it's good to see MeeGo ain't dead after mama Nokia cheated papa Intel with his friend Microsoft.
  You can't kill it, it's open source, it will die on its own if it isn't any good.
Stupid editors can't spell Waylon by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 09:28 · Score: 2, Funny

But good to see MeeGo embracing country music anyway.
(Mod me +1 funny or -1 offtopic, but don't bother trying to educate me -- I already know Wayland is a graphics server, like an X server "but better".)
1. Re:Stupid editors can't spell Waylon by Bill+Hayden · 2011-05-31 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  I already know Wayland is a graphics server, like an X server "but without important features used by people who do actual work with Linux".)
  FTFY.
  
  --
  Protect your browser with the Force Safe Search add-on
What is it? by 6Yankee · 2011-05-27 09:43 · Score: 1

I'm sure this is all very exciting if you know what MeeGo is.
I've gone to the site, read the homepage and got a hint. Then I read the About page and got corporate name-checks and drivel about leveraging stuff.
Is it an OS? Or what?
1. Re:What is it? by suy · 2011-05-27 09:54 · Score: 2
  
  You can think of MeeGo as "just" a Linux distribution. However, it's optimized and focused in bringing the usual Linux stack to all sorts of devices (TVs, cars, phones, tablets...).
  It's a true open source project, or at least, it aims to be (is just beginning), and provides some sort of tools, and middleware. It's also a specification that you have to comply if you want to be MeeGo certified, so you can grant that software runs on all MeeGo devices.
2. Re:What is it? by PopeRatzo · 2011-05-27 09:55 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Is it an OS? Or what?
  MeeGo is one of those little scooters that fat people drive around in the Wal-Mart because they're too obese to walk 30 feet to pick up their 5 gallon jar of pickles, adult diapers and box of shotgun shells.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
3. Re:What is it? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 09:57 · Score: 0
  
  It is a derivative of redcrap linux. Apparently Intel and Nokia wanted to choose the worst possible distro for non x86 hardware. Guess it makes sense from Intel's side, and they were the ones pushing hardest for redcrap.
4. Re:What is it? by the+linux+geek · 2011-05-27 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  It is a collaboration between Intel and several cell phone OEM's, with Nokia a major player, to develop an open-source Linux operating system for phones. In a sense, it is the spiritual successor to Nokia's Maemo operating system, found on the N770, N800, N810, and N900 devices. MeeGo is much more "Linuxy" than Android is, providing a complete RPM-based Linux stack with Qt as the primary API.
5. Re:What is it? by icebraining · 2011-05-27 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  You should know by now that official websites are useless to find what they are actually about. For that there's Wikipedia.
  
  MeeGo is a Linux-based open source mobile operating system project. Primarily targeted at mobile devices and information appliances in the consumer electronics market, MeeGo is designed to act as an operating system for hardware platforms such as netbooks, entry-level desktops, nettops, tablet computers, mobile computing and communications devices, in-vehicle infotainment devices, SmartTV / ConnectedTV, IPTV-boxes, smart phones, and other embedded systems. MeeGo is today hosted by the Linux Foundation.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
6. Re:What is it? by 6Yankee · 2011-05-27 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you! :)
  Now why couldn't *they* say that...
7. Re:What is it? by 6Yankee · 2011-05-27 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks, now I don't feel quite as dumb as I did :)
8. Re:What is it? by Microlith · 2011-05-27 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  That's at best a pale explanation.
  MeeGo is a fully open source Linux OS under the Linux Foundation umbrella that seeks to be a reference baseline OS for all sorts of consumer electronics. Phones, Tablets, Netbooks (less these days), TVs, set top boxes, and in-car computers.
9. Re:What is it? by VortexCortex · 2011-05-27 13:28 · Score: 1
  
  Simple: It's the non Apple-trademark infringing version of iPee.
  Seriously though: (once again) FTWA
  
  MeeGo is a Linux-based open source mobile operating system project. Primarily targeted at mobile devices and information appliances in the consumer electronics market, MeeGo is designed to act as an operating system for hardware platforms such as netbooks, entry-level desktops, nettops, tablet computers, mobile computing and communications devices, in-vehicle infotainment devices, SmartTV / ConnectedTV, IPTV-boxes, smart phones, and other embedded systems. MeeGo is today hosted by the Linux Foundation.
  
  TL;DR: You're on the Internet. Use it.
10. Re:What is it? by 6Yankee · 2011-05-27 15:57 · Score: 1
  
  TL;DR: You're on the Internet. Use it.
  I guess you missed the part where I used the Internet to go find the official MeeGo site. TL;DR indeed.
11. Re:What is it? by Lennie · 2011-05-27 21:24 · Score: 1
  
  Let me guess you've never tried to search on Google and clicked on the 3rd or 4th link ? Because that probably points to this page:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MeeGo
  I suggest you try it next time, it aint all bad.
  
  --
  New things are always on the horizon
12. Re:What is it? by 6Yankee · 2011-05-27 22:19 · Score: 1
  
  If I go to your official site, and still have to go to Wikipedia to find out what the hell it is you're making, then your official site is a miserable failure.
  I don't need Internet 101, thank you very much, especially after having had it from the other respondents whose posts you presumably skipped in your rush to deliver it, but I hope the warm glow of smug superiority brightened your day. :)
13. Re:What is it? by hitmark · 2011-05-28 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  Nokia have been cutting back on support since the Winphone agreement with MS. Hell, they have even outsourced Qt now.
  The funny/sad thing about Meego, is that these days it is more Moblin (a Intel project) then Maemo. Hell, i am not even sure if the 1.2 release have transitioned to Qt as the main interface toolkit on the netbook and IVI variants (the variants that Intel focused on).
  I base the claim on it being RPM based, as Maemo have been DEB based since day one. Moblin also was DEB on first release, then changed to RPM on second release.
  But then the management of Maemo has been a clusterfuck since about the announcement of the N900. First they break with the ui and such that has been more or less in use since the 770 (even earlier, as the 7700 and 7710 had a similar layout but was based on symbian). This meant extra work if one wanted the software to look nice on both the N800/N810 and the N900 (few bother). Then came the purchase of Trolltech and the change to Qt. Quickly followed by the merger with Intel Moblin to create Meego. Ever since things have been in development hell. Not quite dead, but not alive either.
  
  --
  comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
14. Re:What is it? by SwedishPenguin · 2011-06-09 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  Because they assume that if you're interested you already know what Meego is? Especially if you regularly read slashdot.. Should they also explain what KDE, Xorg etc is everytime news about them comes along?
Please ship SOMETHING compatible by RanceJustice · 2011-05-27 11:17 · Score: 1

I'm the proud owner of a N900, but I'm very frustrated in how MeeGo has stagnated, especially regarding Microsoft's attempt to nail it into its coffin. Maemo/MeeGo is by far the best mobile OS around that provides true power to the user and may actually, over time, have the same kind of exposure that Android did influential in growing "App" developer networks. Sadly, with few if any devices shipping its going to remain a playtoy.
I'd like to see MeeGo become basically installable on any device that Android can reside and more. If its going to have to take over the "old fashioned" dual boot way, so be it. When its features are useful enough to basically work as a phone, I'm going to put MeeGo (1.2? 1.3?) on my N900. However, it would be great if it could also load onto Nexus S, Nexus One, etc.. and a host of other higher end android offerings. On the tablet side, I just bought an Asus Transformer - let me load the tablet edition onto it? If there was a new top-tier phone released with MeeGo and the assurance it would be upgradable and not simply stuck and outdated, I'd buy. If this isn't happening anymore and MeeGo wants to be successful, make it compatible enough that those geeks who appreciate it will seek out and install it on their devices that shipped with other OSes.
1. Re:Please ship SOMETHING compatible by ianare · 2011-05-27 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  Not looking to good on that front, I'm afraid. The focus is now more on tablets and netbooks ever since Nokia left the party. But it could do OK in the tablet space, if there are good apps for it that come out.
2. Re:Please ship SOMETHING compatible by Microlith · 2011-05-27 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  I'd like to see MeeGo become basically installable on any device that Android can reside and more.
  This is not something MeeGo or its developers can fix, at least not on the mobile device (ARM-based) space. Google has worked very hard to make sure the user space is incompatible with more common Linux distributions and software, and vendors are loathe to merge their drivers and device support upstream (because that would require more work.)
  
  However, it would be great if it could also load onto Nexus S, Nexus One, etc.. and a host of other higher end android offerings
  A basic port should be possible, if not done already, but won't be part of MeeGo unless someone picks up the torch. You'd also have to harass Google to compile any binary only bits (namely the graphics drivers) for glibc and to work with Xorg 1.9.
  The OS is open enough that users are more than empowered to make it happen (it's running on Qualcomm chips and Tegra 2) but whether hardware vendors will play ball to get it running is another question entirely.
3. Re:Please ship SOMETHING compatible by UpnAtom · 2011-05-27 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  Tablets are as useless as they ever were.
  Want to type something? Sorry one handed virtual keyboard only. Since you have to carry the device, hope it's something short you're writing.
  Want to make a call? Sorry we cut that feature.
  Want to watch a film? Here's a wedge for only $30 so you can see the screen properly.
  iPads only sold because Apple fanboys will buy anything made by Apple.
  Smaller devices are the new PC ie a 'platform' that can make a company $tens of billions.
  It's interesting how great Nokia were only became well-known after they became Microsoft's bitch. If they sacked the CEO and went public about how it's all a bad idea and they're going 100% Meego, they could maybe start to eat market share.
  Symbian is dying. Apple, Android and Windows Phone are all corporate platforms that a lot of people feel dirty using.
  Whereas Meego had the interest of real developers. The best OS on the best hardware.
4. Re:Please ship SOMETHING compatible by ChunderDownunder · 2011-05-27 16:40 · Score: 1
  
  (it's running on Qualcomm chips and Tegra 2)
  Probably out of luck if you buy a phone using those chips. Those incorporating PowerVR GPUs may, eventually, run better with Wayland - as used in Intel's Atom platform.
5. Re:Please ship SOMETHING compatible by Microlith · 2011-05-27 17:16 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with the way hardware is handled in the ARM space is that the SGX drivers that work on one platform may not work on another, even if the SGX core is the same. On top of that, you'd need them built explicitly for Xorg 1.9 and compiled against glibc (so basically, the vendor would be shipping both Android and MeeGo, or using the same hardware as one shipping MeeGo.)
  It's all about vendor-dependence.
6. Re:Please ship SOMETHING compatible by Ultra64 · 2011-05-27 18:55 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, so since tablets don't fit your exact requirements they are not useful for anyone.
  Better call all the tablet manufacturers and their customers and let them know that they only think the devices are working for them.
7. Re:Please ship SOMETHING compatible by Gaygirlie · 2011-05-27 22:26 · Score: 1
  
  Tablets are as useless as they ever were.
  I'd like to point out that a few billion people worldwide disagree with you.
8. Re:Please ship SOMETHING compatible by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-28 00:41 · Score: 0
  
  I'd like to point out that a few billion people worldwide disagree with you.
  Lul, whut? How many are "a few billion"? At least more than "a couple" apparently, so it has to be at least three. So, effectively that would be approaching half the population of the earth then?
  Methinks you need to get out of that reality distortion field, an put that bong down.
9. Re:Please ship SOMETHING compatible by Rennt · 2011-05-28 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, there are billions of tablet users. Smoke crack much?
10. Re:Please ship SOMETHING compatible by Rennt · 2011-05-28 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  Google has worked very hard to make sure the user space is incompatible with more common Linux distributions and software
  Have they? I'd love to see some evidence of that.
  
  You'd also have to harass Google to compile any binary only bits (namely the graphics drivers) for glibc and to work with Xorg 1.9.
  What? Why would you even want binary drivers? In any case, Google is no more responsible for supplying 3D drivers then the eponymous Linus himself. Either harass the hardware vendor or write your own damn driver.
11. Re:Please ship SOMETHING compatible by Gaygirlie · 2011-05-28 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, there are billions of tablet users. Smoke crack much?
  No, I download cracks, I don't smoke them.
12. Re:Please ship SOMETHING compatible by exomondo · 2011-05-29 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  It's interesting how great Nokia were only became well-known after they became Microsoft's bitch.
  How great they were, you know, over 4 years ago back when their highend phones were good because we didn't expect as much of them as we do today. They arguably had the best hardware but since the 'smartphone revolution' they have been relegated to the low-mid end, low margin market. The N900 is great but it isn't going to win the mainstream consumer market.
Will Wayland be network transparent? by npsimons · 2011-05-27 15:48 · Score: 2

Oh, and Wayland will also have an X server.
You know what's really cool about my N900? I can export it's display across the network. I can also run graphical programs on my N900 off my laptop, file/print server or web/email server. Without tweaking, without rebooting, without having to start an X server or X server "compatibility mode" and without having to start some "remote desktop viewer". You know why? Because it runs X. I don't really have much of a problem with Wayland, except that they seem to think dumping network transparency is a good thing. Similarly, I don't have much of a problem with MeeGo, except they think that dumping apt-get and .debs in favor of RPMs is a good thing. "Those who don't understand UNIX . . ."

--
Nathan's blog
1. Re:Will Wayland be network transparent? by DrXym · 2011-05-27 20:15 · Score: 1
  
  Network transparency is a minor feature and certainly one which should not impede the local experience. Besides, why do you think Wayland makes network transparency impossible? It's not infeasible that someone could design a protocol over the top that allowed remote rendering of apps by sending mouse / keyboard / microphone events one way and window draw & audio instructions in the other. That's in addition to all the existing ways of network transparency - X, VNC etc.
2. Re:Will Wayland be network transparent? by maxwell+demon · 2011-05-27 21:35 · Score: 2
  
  Network transparency is a minor feature and certainly one which should not impede the local experience.
  Compositing window management is a minor feature and certainly one which should not impede the network experience.
  
  Besides, why do you think Wayland makes network transparency impossible?
  Not exactly impossible. But it is based on shared buffers. Adding network transparency would mean that you continuously transfer buffers over the network, causing huge network traffic. Already today, modern X applications are often slow like morasses over "slow" internet connections (i.e. DSL). After reading the Wayland FAQ, I think I now understand why:
  From the FAQ:
  The problem with X is that... it's X. When you're an X server there's a tremendous amount of functionality that you must support to claim to speak the X protocol, yet nobody will ever use this. For example, core fonts; this is the original font model that was how your got text on the screen for the many first years of X11. This includes code tables, glyph rasterization and caching, XLFDs (seriously, XLFDs!) Also, the entire core rendering API that lets you draw stippled lines, polygons, wide arcs and many more state-of-the-1980s style graphics primitives.
  I don't know what XFLDs are, but I don't consider the X server rendering fonts and providing graphics primitives a bad idea. But I guess if modern X programs indeed don't use those, this explains why they perform so badly over the network: They probably indeed render locally and push the pixels over the network.
  But the fix is not to remove the functionality, the fix is making programs use it.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
3. Re:Will Wayland be network transparent? by DrXym · 2011-05-27 22:46 · Score: 1
  
  Compositing window management is a minor feature and certainly one which should not impede the network experience.
  It's not a minor feature in a modern desktop. In the old world when you moved a window the WM had to work out the damage to the ones it fell over, send off invalidation messages, incur a bunch of context switches so the windows could repaint and draw through clip regions so the lower z-order window didn't inadvertantly paint over windows above it. If every window is a surface then you don't need to invalidate / repaint damaged windows when one moves over the top of another, just recompose.
  And Wayland isn't just about compositing, it's about removing context switches and other bottlenecks.
  
  I don't know what XFLDs are, but I don't consider the X server rendering fonts and providing graphics primitives a bad idea.
  
  It wouldn't be a bad idea if core X11 fonts were truetype fonts with support for anti-aliasing / clear type, paths, rotation, scaling etc. but they're not. They're really, really crappy bitmap fonts which are utterly useless for any modern GUI. So apps use freetype (Xft + xrender extension) to get those things and the original font support sits there.
  Same issue goes for the drawing primitives. They're crappy and clunky so apps and widget sets use Cairo (or an analog like QPainter) to ensure rich antialiased rendering.
  Everything bypasses X as much as possible already and at this point the framework is a problem to work around. That's why it deserves to die. Remoting and other things can be worked into a replacement and shouldn't be seen as a reason to do nothing at all.
4. Re:Will Wayland be network transparent? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-28 02:37 · Score: 0
  
  "Network transparency is a minor feature and certainly one which should not impede the local experience."
  No. Just no.
  It's a HUGE feature - far more important than eye candy, because it's functionality. I like my compositing desktop, but it's not functionality, it's eye candy. Network transparency is critical functionality. Breaking it will be a disaster.
5. Re:Will Wayland be network transparent? by maxwell+demon · 2011-05-28 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  I don't say they should be nothing. I wouldn't oppose a new interface if it had networking transparency built-in from the start (because that's the only way networking can get efficient). Also, if they want to reduce context switching, they should put more work into the server, not less. I think the Berlin/Fresco project was going in the right direction; unfortunately it died because at some point the developers got at odds with each others about certain design decisions.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
6. Re:Will Wayland be network transparent? by serviscope_minor · 2011-05-28 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  It's not a minor feature in a modern desktop.
  It is on mine. I do real work, rather than play with shiny shiny.
  In the old world when you moved a window the WM had to work out the damage to the ones it fell over, send off invalidation messages, incur a bunch of context switches so the windows could repaint and draw through clip regions so the lower z-order window didn't inadvertantly paint over windows above it. If every window is a surface then you don't need to invalidate / repaint damaged windows when one moves over the top of another, just recompose.
  Oh come on. Baching stores are in the *core* protocol.
  Everything bypasses X as much as possible already and at this point the framework is a problem to work around. That's why it deserves to die. Remoting and other things can be worked into a replacement and shouldn't be seen as a reason to do nothing at all.
  Except for the network transparency and window management, which are the two killer features of X11. Those are what make it stand head and shoulders above all other GUIs. So, that's what they've decided to remove for Wayland. No networking, and programs do their own window decorations and management. That is why wayland should die and is absoloutely no replacement for X.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
7. Re:Will Wayland be network transparent? by DrXym · 2011-05-29 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  The point about compositing is its more efficient for more reasons than eye candy. I just stated one obvious way it can improve the desktop experience and performance assuming you have a modern GPU.
  As for remoting, I still haven't heard any adequate reason that the entire local desktop should be hobbled by an antiquated technology and half a dozen band aid extensions for the sake of running some remote apps. X can run on top of Wayland and there will be other ways from VNC on up that will work with native Wayland and apps.
  I'd also point out that remoting is not some exclusive feature that X has and no other desktop has. There are numerous ways to remotely share desktops, some built-in, some open source, some proprietary. Some even do seamless application windows.
Beats Ubuntu... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 15:56 · Score: 0

All I know is: my Toshiba NB305 never worked so well as it does now with MeeGo. Ubuntu Netbook Edition could never reliably connect to the router... and I almost forgot it had a speaker. Now, everything just works.
uh so what is Wayland server? by rastoboy29 · 2011-05-27 18:16 · Score: 1

Presumeably this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayland_(display_server_protocol) A method for applications to access a lower level of the OS than X, according to my naive understanding. Sounds a lot like directX?

--
expandfairuse.org
1. Re:uh so what is Wayland server? by maxwell+demon · 2011-05-27 21:18 · Score: 1
  
  Please note that the correct URL is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayland_%28display_server_protocol%29 That way, it will work with anything parsing correctly formed URLs (like QuietUrl).
  Of course it doesn't help that Slashdot must be prevented to recognize that as URL, because otherwise it "helpfully" converts the %28 and %29 back to parentheses, forming an invalid URL and thus breaking everything expecting a valid one (also it doesn't help that Firefox [and probably other browsers] does the same in the URL bar, thus giving the impression that this would indeed be a correct URL - well, at least when doing copy&paste they convert it back to a valid URL [never mind that this way they break the fundamental assumption of copy&paste that what you paste is exactly what you copied]).
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
2. Re:uh so what is Wayland server? by rastoboy29 · 2011-05-28 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, thanks for the tip--I was totally just slinging it in there from my url bar without even thinking about it.
  
  --
  expandfairuse.org
3. Re:uh so what is Wayland server? by Jonner · 2011-05-28 20:51 · Score: 1
  
  Rather than complaining about Slashdot URL-decoding characters, you could just provide a proper hyperlink. BTW, the text of the link doesn't require any special treatment.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayland_%28display_server_protocol%29