Comments on: the damn small Wayland API

By: Rune K. Svendsen

Rune K. Svendsen — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:39:10 +0000

That’s not quite true. Any program that uses Xlib calls will not work with Wayland (or the part that depends on the call will not work). I’m not sure how many apps do this, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it is fairly common (at least among graphics apps), which isn’t really surprising given that no serious substitute for X has existed for about 30 years.

By: X.Org est mort, vive Wayland! | Club Linux Atomic

X.Org est mort, vive Wayland! | Club Linux Atomic — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:51:42 +0000

[...] une petite idée de leurs différences, l’interface de programmation (API) de Wayland est environ 15 fois plus petite que celle de [...]

By: X.Org est mort, vive Wayland! | Geek-City Blog

X.Org est mort, vive Wayland! | Geek-City Blog — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:39:05 +0000

[...] une petite idée de leurs différences, l’interface de programmation (API) de Wayland est environ 15 fois plus petite que celle de [...]

By: Sergio Costas

Sergio Costas — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 20:23:34 +0000

The interesting point is that, currently, nearly nobody works with X directly, but always relies on libraries like GTK and Qt. By porting both to Wayland (which, in fact, already has been done), all programs based on them will work both in X and in Wayland. So the compatibility layer will be needed only for old programs, like the ones based on Motif/Lesstif or similar. How many programs do you use that work with Motif?

By: CSRedRat

CSRedRat — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 19:41:14 +0000

XWayland in X.Org Server 1.14!

By: Martin

Martin — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:36:44 +0000

@Nick:
Sorry, having to install an X server (or some X extension to Wayland) to get compatibility is as good as it is when using Windows or Mac. It sucks. Also, if you have it always installed by default, the API which has to be supported is now X + Wayland. So what is the point?
But there is also the other way round, Wayland clients will not work on X. (Well the toolkit could forever support both, but what is the point then?) This breaks the ecosystem. And for what reason? On the Wayland homepage it says that everyhing could also have been accomplished as an extension to X.

See, I really like small, nice, and elegant interfaces. But if I think of how Wayland fits in the overall picture, I only see how it makes things less functional and more complicated. e.g. have an extra X app for backwards compatiblity, which will probably bit rot soon. Having toolkits have more backends… Having later some kind of network transparency added back in as a kludge, because people realize that it is useful in a world where there is fast internet everywhere (which is then not fully functional, because it “just moves pixels” and does not offer full integration)

Wayland is only small, simple, and elegant if you ignore all this.

@Kaacz:
Imagine having devices (mobile, TV, wlan router, fridge, …) which instead of having stupid web interfaces could have programs with a nice GUI which you can show on your laptop. One could cut&paste a number from the adress book or drag&drop a movie to the TV or just move the window of the TV player from the mobile to the TV when coming home and a lot more. I cannot think how one can design a display system without network transparency at its core in 2012. Probably Apple has to do it at some point before people realize how cool this is.

By: Kaacz

Kaacz — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:09:15 +0000

@Martin > network transparency which is actually a very cool feature especially for mobile devices. <

Really ? 95% users of mobile devices don't need get mobile "desktop" to other device. Yes, maybe need get other desktop on mobile device client. But this no make problem with use Wayland on mobile device. Simply install x-app expansion running on top Wayland.

By: Nick

Nick — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:49:20 +0000

Look, nobody is forced to used Wayland. X is not going anywhere, and they can actually coexist nicely.

So even if everyone everywhere was using wayland, X can stick around for as long as backward compatibility is a desired feature.

Also, Wayland does not prohibit network transparency.

By: Martin

Martin — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 06:25:34 +0000

So what? X ran fine with 4 MB or so. I am much more concerned about loosing forward compatibility for stuff that has worked for decades. And network transparency which is actually a very cool feature especially for mobile devices.

By: Herpner

Herpner — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 03:47:09 +0000

Needs more cowbell, clearly.