Fedora 25 To Run Wayland By Default Instead Of X.Org Server (phoronix.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Fedora 25 will finally be the first release for this Linux distribution -- and the first tier-one desktop Linux OS at large -- that is going ahead and using Wayland by default. Wayland has been talked about for years as a replacement to the xorg-server and finally with the upcoming Fedora 25 release this is expected to become a reality. The X.Org Server will still be present on Fedora systems for those running into driver problems or other common issues.
Fedora's steering committee agreed to the change provided the release notes "are clear about how to switch back to X11 if needed." In addition, according to the Fedora Project's wiki, "The code will automatically fall back to Xorg in cases where Wayland is unavailable (like NVIDIA)."

Comments

"common issues" should not be the default

[Anonymous Coward]

If there are "common issues", it shouldn't be a default, no matter what it is.

This literally damages the reputation of FOSS as a whole - recklessly making "common issues" more common.

Wayland bashing

[packrat0x]

Cue negative Wayland comments by those who have not read, or do not understand the X.org code. Who do we hope will maintain the codebase? There's what, four men still alive, who can do the job?

Re:Wayland bashing

[isj]

I've read the x.org codebase. Mostly to discover the grey areas in the protocol when I was working on a X/Window server running on ms-windows. The x.org code is not pretty but that is mostly due to being an old code base.

The X protocol has its problems and quirks too, particularly when dealing with long latency between server and client. It was designed when using high-level primitives (eg "draw line to (x,y) in color Z") made sense. When client just use such primitives the speed is impressive. But some 10 years ago clients started doing client rendering and just sending bitmaps to the display server. Mostly that meant higher bandwidth and fewer round-trips. Whether that is good or bad depends on the clients and the environment.

I have followed the progress of wayland a bit, and I have actually seen some of the presentations. It seems to me that wayland initially was infested by the type of developers that think that all they need is direct access to video memory, and for remote applications all you need is VNC-style full-desktop remote. Of course people who use remote X think that that is a myopic and arrogant view. It seems that wayland has gained some developers in the past few years who have more common sense and one of the new goals is to support remote X clients in a root-less fashion. When they have implemented that and also made sure that both clipboard and X-selection work then I'll give wayland a shot.

Re:Wayland bashing

[squiggleslash]

Nobody's enthusiastic about X. We're not not happy about a replacement that lacks the features of X that we loved and in many cases relied upon.

And no, I don't want to hear that only "1% of users use the XSERVER variable" or that the underlying implementation wasn't very good.

Hardly anyone uses GNU/Linux, but we'd never accept that as an argument for abolishing the operating system and requiring Windows.

As for the latter - it doesn't matter if it's not perfect, it works damn it. I can manage a remote instance of LibreOffice as an app integrated on my desktop. I do this.

We'll be happy with Wayland when it's as good as, or better than, X11. Not when the underlying code is temporarily easier to understand (you think it'll stay that way?), but when its feature complete, by our standards, not by the developers.

Re:Wayland bashing

[Uecker]

The code base of X is OK. Yes, I have read the code of many different open-source projects (and some close-source). But the real problem is not the code at all, I don't mind if somebody decides it needs to reimplement the X server for some reason. The real problem with Wayland is breaking backwards and forwards compatibility with a universally supported protocol instead of carefully revising it in a backwards compatible way (which would easily be possible with extensions). This is just insanely stupid.

Re:Wayland bashing

[Anonymous Coward]

People are starting to push back against the like of dnf being a replacement for yum,
but does a very poor job of providing real compatibility with yum - silently doing something
_different_ with the same command arguments.

Same w/Wayward. The important features are *now* being pasted on top of the source
topology, not an integral part of its design, as they should have been.

What people rail against is the removal of choice by these "software authors." They're not
clever enough to have their new stuff run side-by-side with the established stuff, for
whatever reason, it's perceived as arrogance.

Then there's the clown(s) out there who says "hey - you don't like it, get the sources and make it
yourself" and has only gotten as far as writing a "hello, world!" program in their "engineering" career.

CAP === 'unwind'

As long as...

[Kludge]

I'm fine with Wayland...
As long as it still runs all my wonderful diverse choices of Unix desktop environments.

Eye Candy v Functionality

[BoxRec]

I use the desktop for work, since April 2011 Linux desktops have promoted Eye Candy above Functionality. I am not just moaning about Fedora here, these are generalized complaints. Will I be able to switch instantly between windows/desktops ? probably not, there will be some lag due to the necessities of Eye Candy. Will I have a visual indicator of which documents I have open, nope, I will have to rely on subtle clues hidden at the edge of the monitor to hunt for them. Will I be able to quickly and easily navigate/tab down to some little used graphics program, nope I will to use a graphic menu clicking all over the place and making sense of the whole screen or even worse have to google for the name and type it in.

Re:Eye Candy v Functionality

[John Allsup]

These are nothing to do with Wayland, but upon what you build upon it. Wayland provides a protocol for local programs to render to client buffers and efficiently pass these to the compositor, and to pass event information back to the application, and essentially little else. All additional functionality is a matter of how you design your compositor (of which Weston is just a sample implementation), and your compositor does not _only_ have to talk Wayland. It is important to understand the software engineering concept of coupling, namely what happens when the design of one component mandates behaviour and design of another component. Minimising this maximises flexibility, but perhaps gives you less 'for free'. An extremely lightweight compositor designed for getting work done is not out of the question, and most likely there will be a proliferation of compositor designs as there was for window manager designs in the earlier days of Linux.

Honest Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Does Wayland, at this stage, provide the same level of functionality that Xorg does? Does everything just work or do all the applications need to be re-achitected to work properly. If I can't ssh -X me@remote WhateverFuckingApp& then I am not even remotely interested in hearing about Wayland, let alone trying it.

After 17 years of daily use, the Linux desktop has come way too for for me to tolerate a major step back or reduction on feature set with the mere promise of improvement in coming months(years), again. KDE4, Gnome3, and Unity were the absolute-last-straws for that scenario.

From now on, new stuff has to be a major improvement in quality, features, functionality, without sacrifice for me to tolerate the interruption in my workflow and the relearning, for the n-teenth time, of basic desktop operation. If the application or feature doesn't make me say; 'Oh wow, I really want that!', then it can FOAD

The days of change for the sake of change, or change for the sake of a programmer's fantasy of technical superiority are over. I expect the Linux desktop to work and to get out of my way so that I can work or play.

Re:Honest Question

[MrKaos]

I think the most important usability features X11 has over Windows and mac is the suberbly powerful cut paste and remote display paradigm. If I can use those X features in Wayland I'll be happy, otherwise, I think you have a point Mr AC.

I switched from Windows to linux because I was sick of that shit, change for change sake. I want change for the sake of a usability improvment in a computing interface that I am compelled to use because it makes me more efficient at using a computer. I am an advanced user and I want an advanced interface. For me that is an ambidextrous mousing paradigm, remote windows, more advanced cut and paste, multiple desktops.

Frankly, UI configurability in linux has gone backwards since it got more popular, workspaces interfaces have *less* functionality than it did in 2008 when I could drag windows between workspaces and you could configure just about every aspect of gnome to customize your linux desktop experience. I didn't want a Mac or Windows UI and since their UI's adopted workspaces the functionality in linux seems to be dumbed down and advanced linux GUI features being domesticated.

Wayland looks like it is answering the need for backwards X11 compatibility with Weston so it remains to be seen if it will take the powerful features of X11 and leave some of the atropied aspects behind.

Re: Desktop environments have to implement support

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, everything just works on my Windows 10 desktop.

even all the things microsoft added that you don't want to work, right?