Slashdot Mirror
First Steps Towards Network Transparency For Wayland (phoronix.com)
munwin99 writes: For the longest time, when bringing up Wayland a recurring question was 'what about network transparency?!' Well, Samsung's Derek Foreman has today published the set of Wayland patches for providing Wayland network transparency by pushing the Wayland protocol over TCP/IP.
I seriously doubt that network transparency is at the top of anyones mind. It is 2016. If you want headless remote desktop availability you have a plethora of cross-platform options at your fingertips.
> For the longest time,
Lets analyse how long this time is. The initial wayland release was on 09 February 2012 according to wikipedia, so it looks like the longest time may almost exactly 4 years, and we can now use "the longest time", or, LongestTimes as a unit of time.
I can reveal for example, that I was born around 9 LongestTimes ago. In other words, its been the longest time, since the longest time, since the longest time, since the longest time, since the longest time, since the longest time, since the longest time, since the longest time, since the longest time, since I was born.
Holy fuck, how about they actually make it simple to run Wayland?!
I mean they've been working on Wayland for years now, yet it's still a real pain in the ass to get working on a modern Linux distro.
As shitty as X.org is, at least it's fairly easy to install and get working these days. It usually just happens as part of the Linux distro installation.
But getting Wayland running? Holy fucking moley! Be prepared for a fight!
The best I've managed so far was getting some Wayland-in-X thing running, and the results were less than spectacular.
I don't give a fuck about its support for network transparency when I can't even get the fucker to run on my systems!
They should at least get it to the point where it can be used on a standalone workstation, and only then should they look into network transparency.
A windowing system that we can't actually use is, well, pretty fucking useless!
I use it all the time for gitk and gitgui, which are great tools.
If gitk/gitgui had their own remote-repo-via-ssh functionality then remote display functionality wouldn't be necessary.
Previously, the developers always refused to consider network transparency, and heated discussions followed. If now it is accepted, it is newsworthy for those who care about the feature, even though nobody can actually run Wayland yet.
Those who do not understand X are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Harry Spencer (sort of).
Wake me up in several or more years when something is actually available, works, and is really backwards compatible. Meanwhile, those of us who depend on thin clients really do have a problem with throwing away X11.
Arguably, their stupidity and support to fight against network transparency, while hand waving that it's not an issue, is likely a huge part of the reason Wayland has languished. Had they and their supporters not been so idiotic, Wayland would likely be the defacto Linux GUI today.
Most everyone wants a modern GUI framework but not at the cost of loss of significant, not trivial features. Doing otherwise is idiotic.
Our accounting package runs on a vm on a server. Several people run the app on the server with the graphics rendered locally. Vnc sessions would be horrid for this ise case. Oh and the accounting package is ancient but works great.
and why should I care? Jeez people, is it really that hard to add a line to the summary to explain these esoteric things?
Install Fedora 23. During login, click the little gear and pick Gnome on Wayland. Easy and everything seems to work. Software that isn't rendering over Wayland uses the X server which in turn renders to Wayland.
Wayland already runs X, warts and all. No improvements, mere backwards compatibility. Even ssh -X works.
Some people like to complain about Wayland not having network transparency (meaning the new compositor doesn't have it, yet).
The article is about adding network transparency to the "new and improved" compositor and then comparing performance between old and new.
Some people will complain, "why do we need to switch?" The answer is most of the human beings that understand X Windows are dead and a few of those that remain are working on Wayland to eventually replace X.
This is ludicrous. Wayland is hardly "languishing", and there has been no push on anyone's part to make it the "de factor Linux GUI". It is under development, everyone recognizes it as the next way forward, toolkits and drivers are targeting and supporting it, and it will be adopted when it is ready for adoption.
Anyone using the interim period to scream about network transparency is a moron. Yes, that means you.
LTSP
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
X is a protocol for graphical interface elements, such as application windows. With remote X, the application's window IS on your local screen, using the remote cpu and fileystem. It's part of your local desktop, a real, local window.
VNC is a highly compressed PICTURE of a remote desktop.
Since X is the real thing, and VNC is a low quality PICTURE of what X is actually doing, it's just like you're saying that a porno mag is better than an actual girlfriend. Your comment is THAT ridiculous.
Besides the fact that you seemingly don't know the difference between an application and a desktop environment.
If you ever want to stop masturbating with VNC and try the real thing, use vnc -Y -C . Y is a better version of -X, and -C enables lossless compression, which is very useful on most networks.
Oh, that's efficient. So soon I can look forward to rendering my X apps to network-transparent Wayland--though X has this capability baked in? My heart leaps with joy!
Niche case is an euphemism for "what I don't care for".
Given this definition, you, Sir are a niche case.
Trump is a so much of a retard he can't count to potato
*fart* *fart* Oh god, I dropped an Obama in my pants!
This wouldn't have happened if you hadn't had goatse ream your arse out
That's definately not true. Only select few need the network transparency. I've never used it on X, i don't give a crap about it. And wayland devs did not fight against it. They said they are not going to do it, anyone else is free to do it. I think they have more important things to work on, before baking in some rarely used feature.
"ssh -X" already works fine on wayland. Install Fedora 23, start a wayland session and try it. (Ok, it starts up an xwayland server underneath, but from a user point of view it works indistinguishably)
It's not surprising. The people writing Wayland are the current stewards of X, and have been responsible for a number of really user-hostile things in X development too.
For example there used to be a keystroke for killing grabs. They removed it claiming it was "unnecessary" because you only need it if there's a bug in an application. So you should fix the buggy application, rather than just killing the grab (or application) and continuing with your day.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Good news! systemd should be handling all graphics processing in just a few more days. You won;t need to worry about Wayland or X11 or or anything else. Just sit back and let systemd take care of it for you.
While we're waiting, perhaps you could rewrite logger so that we can have applications and script write to the system log like we use to be able to before systemd decided that we didn't need to write to or view logs anymore.
It's going to be a fucking riot when Ubuntu 15.04LTS drops and everyone sees that systemd broke all their shit. LOL!
Had they and their supporters not been so idiotic, Wayland would likely be the defacto Linux GUI today.
Errr no. Were Wayland actually ready for the prime time and not still a nightmare to get going it would likely be the default today. To be very clear many of us don't give a shit about network transparency but still can't get Wayland going for one reason or another.
Yeah, that should be ssh -YC or ssh -Y -C, not vnc.
(By habit I normally seperate my flags since -AB can mean -A B, with B being an argument to A).
Is Fedora 23 a "modern Linux distro"? If so, to use Wayland on a modern distro, click on the little gear under your name on the login screen and choose "Gnome on Wayland". It's so easy I've done it by accident. (Synergy still has no Wayland support, so I don't want it as my default, but GDM remembers what desktop you chose last time.) This is a "real pain in the ass"?
My current complaints are that Synergy doesn't work, which isn't really a Wayland failing at all; lack of an xrandr equivalent that I've found in a couple days of casual looking; and that I can't middle-click to paste anymore in native Wayland applications. (That last actually does still work between applications running on XWayland.) The availablility of XWayland also should mean that you can still use ssh -X from a desktop running Wayland and forward remote X applications. Still, I'm happy to see networks transparency developed for Wayland, because eventually X won't cover everything graphical I want to run from a remote VM.
Wayland already handles multiple monitors with different DPI much better than X, which is why I went ahead and tried it for a while recently. Other than the items mentioned above, the experience was barely noticeable. If I can find a replacement for xrandr to use in my screen rotation script, I'll probably switch my convertible laptop from X to Wayland by default, since I don't use it with Synergy and I do plug it in to a variety of external displays. My work laptop and desktop systems will probably stay on X until there is Wayland support in Synergy, or a Synergy replacement for Wayland. For my use, I don't even care if such a replacement supports any non-Wayland displays, since I could switch everything at once and non-Linux OSes are confined to VMs in my life.
You completely missed the point. Had the Wayland developers not been idiotic in alienating the power users, which at the time was the majority of Linux users, Wayland would have likely obtained critical mass, which would have addressed both issues. Your complaint exists because Wayland is not popular. Wayland is not popular because they made idiotic choices which destroy features and alienated key demographics. It just so happens that the power users they alienated are also the same developers who would have been likely to support, grow, and develop the project.
The biggest problem Wayland has is a large, ignorant, myopic view of the platform. They are their own worst enemy - and proud of it. That's idiotic.
"It works indistinguishably", until toolkits are updated to use Wayland. Once X toolkits lose support, so does this feature. You're saying it's not a problem specifically because the thing you believe is better is failing to do what you claim Wayland does better. The fact is, Wayland IS the problem you just declared Wayland fixes.
(By habit I normally seperate my flags since -AB can mean -A B, with B being an argument to A).
With separate flags that becomes "-A -B", with -B being an argument to -A. How is that better?
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
For example there used to be a keystroke for killing grabs. They removed it claiming it was "unnecessary" because you only need it if there's a bug in an application.
They removed it because it was a security problem, not because it was "unnecessary". You could use it to bypass lock screens, which are implemented in part through screen grabs.
The AllowDeactivateGrabs and AllowClosedownGrabs options are available in xorg.conf if you want to restore the original insecure behavior.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
We have found one of the 10 wayland users. Everyone point at him and laugh. Sad that his new and improved system still can't even compete with the old system.
> This is ludicrous. Wayland is hardly "languishing
You should look up the word, "languish."
You should learn more about a subject before you form an opinion. Forming an opinion based on your ignorance creates posts like yours. That's the problem. Read the anonymous comments here. You'll consistently find that those of us who actually know what we're talking about all agree with me. Those who know absolutely nothing of the subject matter take your position. And nothing in your comment even begins to address anything which is topical. Not only did you fail to properly apply the definition of a key word, you then go on to add nothing to the discourse. Thusly further proving my point that those of us who actually know something of the topic are face palming the idiocy of comments like yours.
Most Linux programs use the getopt() function from the C library.
getopt() in glibc treats -A -B as two switches. -B can never be interpreted as an argument to -A. On the other hand, -AB DOES set B as the argument to -A, if -A can take an argument. -AB is two arguments IF -A can't take an argument. So on Linux, -AB can have two different meanings. -A -B has only one meaning, it's always two switches.
http://linux.die.net/man/3/get...
Wayland is not now, and has not been trying to be a major part of Linux desktop environments. "Power users"?! way to generalize from your own example. The number of desktop installs is minuscule compared to the number of servers and appliances. There has been no push by anyone to try to make it any sort of default. Go to their website and find me anything that says that it is anything other than a work in progress.
"It is intended to be..."
"It could replace X as the native Linux graphics server, but..."
"Further down the road..."
"I'm not deluding myself that any general purpose desktop Linux distribution will stop shipping X as we know it or as a Wayland client anytime soon. Nor should they..."
Toolkit support is almost all listed as "experimental".
Wayland is not the default Linux graphics server because it's not fucking done yet, not because of some whinging neckbeards.
An example might be helpful. These two commands mean completely different things:
perl -i -w
perl -iw
The first means both -i (inplace edit, do not create backup files) and -w (show warnings)
The second means inplace edit, with backup files named "w". (Do NOT show warnings. )
If you mean to pass two flags, -x -y will always do that. -xy sometimes will, but sometimes it has a completely different meaning.
Avoiding inconsistent behavior due to optional arguments is the whole point. Reread what I just said:
-AB DOES set B as the argument to -A, if -A can take an argument. -AB is two arguments IF -A can't take an argument. So on Linux, -AB can have two different meanings.
It's easy to forget that -A CAN optionally take an argument, if you're accustomed to using it without. You wouldn't forget that -o always has a required argument, if you use it at all. That is, you'd never use "ls -I ht" expecting it to behave the same as "ls ht -I", because obviously -I needs argument.
You're moving the goalposts. What you said was:
So on Linux, -AB can have two different meanings. -A -B has only one meaning, it's always two switches.
"-A -B" is two switches only if "-A" does not have a required argument, otherwise it's one switch. It is not true that "-A -B" is always two switches.
If you're not sure whether a switch takes an optional argument, then the "-AB" and "-A -B" forms have the minor advantage of being unambiguous given that the switch either can take an argument or can be used without one, respectively. However, a better solution would be to consult the --help text or manual page and remove the uncertainty.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
> However, a better solution would be to consult the --help text or manual page and remove the uncertainty.
While carefully reading the man page again for each command you type and carefully comparing what you're typing for each option to it's manual page specification -would- be effective, I'm not sure how many people want to spend the time doing that. Tapping the space bar by habit is a MUCH quicker way to avoid the common error case.
Much like consistently putting switches before arguments:
command file1 file 2 -a -b -- Sometimes works as expected, common source of error.
command -a -b file1 file 2 -- Consistently works as expected, rarely / never causes error.
It doesn't take any longer to type the options before the arguments, and it works with POSIX-correct software.
You, are, an, idiot. Period.
Wayland, from the get go, is intended to replace X. Period.
Nothing you've "contributed" changes anything which has been said here.