On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:36:17PM +0200, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote: > Anno domini 2019 Fri, 12 Jul 13:53:20 -0400 > Steve Litt scripsit: > > Hi all, > > > > What do you think of Wayland? I hear Buster now defaults to Wayland. > Another step in windosification of linux.
It seems obvious that big players would have a powerful motivations to influence the software that millions of people run. It is one of the alternatives for explaining the famous bug in Debian's pseudorandom number generator. Here's a good write up with incisive comments. https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2013/09/20/software-transparency-debian-openssl-bug/ > Has the > "middle-mousebutton-press does not copy text" been fixed > at last? > Can it do display over network now? No, but one of the proposals is to do it the way X does. Quote from Wikipedia:[1] Initial versions of Wayland have not provided network transparency, though Høgsberg noted in 2010 that network transparency is possible.[12] It was attempted as a Google Summer of Code project in 2011, but was not successful.[13] Adam Jackson has envisioned providing remote access to a Wayland application by either "pixel-scraping" (like VNC) or getting it to send a "rendering command stream" across the network (as in RDP, SPICE or X11).[14] As of early 2013, Høgsberg is experimenting with network transparency using a proxy Wayland server which sends compressed images to the real compositor.[15][16] In August 2017, GNOME saw the first such pixel-scraping VNC server implementation under Wayland.[17] ISTR hearing assertions early on that network transparency was not a priority for the Wayland project, and thinking that it didn't seem like a good direction. > Dont know if wayland is compatible to anything not gnome. But I'm not verry > eger to try. Why throw-away a protocol stack that solves the problem? Why not just fix X? Keith Packard and the xorg team did a remarkable job of modularizing X, why not build on that? Of course anyone has the freedom to re-architect something, and perhaps network transparency will be neatly solved. I for one don't need to be their bug tester. I've scarcely noticed anything with X to complain about. Quoting wikipedia again[2] Unlike most earlier display protocols, X was specifically designed to be used over network connections rather than on an integral or attached display device. And here from askubuntu[3]: Wayland is a lot less complex than X which should make it easier to maintain - although some of this simplicity comes from pushing the complexity (eg: how to actually draw onto that buffer, network transparency) to other layers of the stack. By making clients responsible for all of their rendering the clients can be smarter about things things like double-buffering. Existing xclients will not work, and although those based on GTK+ or Qt *may* be supported in future. To paraphrase in doggerl: Wayland's like a step back counting on a future hack. Those less geeky won't think twice Hearing all is new and nice. They'd be more choosy what they run Knowing who's behind the fun 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayland_(display_server_protocol) 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System 3. https://askubuntu.com/questions/11537/why-is-wayland-better -- Joel Roth "Welcome to the World Heat Bank, where we store your waste energy and return it with interest." _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
