Re: Future of X.org?
On Mon, 8 Jul 2019, Steve Litt wrote: It's one thing to support an alternative: Quite another to call for the death of the original. Unfortunately it is not an alternative as I wrote before. X11 is among other things a standard. If wayland imposes itself, we will have soon programs for X and programs for wayland. A chaos. For many advanced purposes other than desktop, wayland is not enough: X11 will not die as also RS-232 is not death. Also because it will be difficult to port every X11 program. A linux distribution may have wayland as default, perhaps soon all linux distributions. Should all operating systems follow as zelous wayland propagandists want? Well, today we want to see any open source and not only open source program in any free, general purpose Operating System. This is the reason why we can move from one *BSD to other or to a linux distribution or to Solaris. Obviously no such OS want to be fully autonome, the exeption is for example Plan9, and you see the price. Rodrigo
Re: Future of X.org?
On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 06:01:52PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: [...] > I use Openbox with program instantiation via dmenu. Now here's the > thing: dmenu is written in pure X: No qt, no gtk, no xforms. Dmenu > does its job perfectly, so quickly that instantiation from hotkey is > imperceptable, as is menu changes in response to keystrokes. I did not know about dmenu, will have a look when spare time comes, thank you for a hint. [...] > If Wayland is now reliable and safe enough to use in OpenBSD, fine, > include it. But those who call for X11's removal are just asking for > trouble like the 2012-2015 systemd wars that plagued Linux and which > OpenBSD avoided. This new daemon was exactly the reason I subscribed to this list (and few others, to sniff on alternatives), even though various events kept me from installing OBSD (or anything else) so far. -- Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **
Re: Future of X.org?
On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 23:26:18 +0200 Tomasz Rola wrote: > On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 07:18:18PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > [...] > > > > Frankly, there is not much point in non-developers discussing > > whether additions to base are acceptable. Feel free to suggest > > Well, whatever developers come up to, I hope I will be able to > continue using FVWM, on top or inside the thing. I only post in this > thread because I sense there are many people out there (I do not mean > you) who equal graphical environment with the lookalikes of Windows > and Mac (KDE, Gnome2 or 3). For me, that is too bloated and sometimes > too inefficient. It's not just you. It's a lot of people. I use Openbox with program instantiation via dmenu. Now here's the thing: dmenu is written in pure X: No qt, no gtk, no xforms. Dmenu does its job perfectly, so quickly that instantiation from hotkey is imperceptable, as is menu changes in response to keystrokes. I've tried higher level substitutes that were a part of "desktop environments", and those saddled me with an aggravating latency between hotkey and instantiation, hence are no substitute for dmenu. Dmenu is at the core foundation of my workflow, so its loss would hurt me. I've seen more than one person in this thread go beyond supporting Wayland, and actively campaign for the removal of X, going so far as to gloat about its supposedly impending removal. What they're telling me is "hey Steve, get with the program, the new thing: Adopt that annoying latency in a program you use hundreds of times a day." It's one thing to support an alternative: Quite another to call for the death of the original. And what of the alternative? It was first released 11 years ago, and has consistently come up short enough that it took until now, 11 years later, for a Linux distro to make it the default. Any software that takes 11 years to achieve reliability has real problems: Problems I don't want to be a part of. If Wayland is now reliable and safe enough to use in OpenBSD, fine, include it. But those who call for X11's removal are just asking for trouble like the 2012-2015 systemd wars that plagued Linux and which OpenBSD avoided. SteveT Steve Litt July 2019 featured book: Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist http://www.troubleshooters.com/techniques
Re: Future of X.org?
On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 07:18:18PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote: [...] > > Frankly, there is not much point in non-developers discussing > whether additions to base are acceptable. Feel free to suggest Well, whatever developers come up to, I hope I will be able to continue using FVWM, on top or inside the thing. I only post in this thread because I sense there are many people out there (I do not mean you) who equal graphical environment with the lookalikes of Windows and Mac (KDE, Gnome2 or 3). For me, that is too bloated and sometimes too inefficient. I had been using both KDE and Gnome for few years in total (and quite a few years ago, so my experiences are probably outdated), but after one upgrade KDE just stopped responding (possibly went into some O(n^2) loop while updating some internal database) and Unity just could not deliver for me (to say it politely). Also, cluttering display with permament menubars and this trash in the bottom had just lost its novelty after a while and became tiring to me. I make use of relatively huge virtual desktop (few-by-few screens) and open many windows. I would like to experiment with making some scripts for FVWM, to help me with juggling the mess around. As long as I can keep doing this, I will be happy (I guess). Thank you. Oh, and BTW I am huge fan of starting in text mode, so I turn off graphical logins whenever I can. -- Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **
Re: Future of X.org?
Tue, 2 Jul 2019 10:31:21 -0700 John Brahy > Thanks for the Wikipedia link. I never researched sentence spacing before. Of course, and to reward the patience of reading to the end of the noise: Template: X Window System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:XWinSys > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:33 AM wrote: > > > Tue, 02 Jul 2019 12:09:01 +0300 cho...@jtan.com > > > > > > Also you've got two spaces again. > > > > Indeed.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_spacing#Computer_era > >
Re: Future of X.org?
Tue, 02 Jul 2019 12:09:01 +0300 cho...@jtan.com > li...@wrant.com writes: > > Worthless thread, worthless comments, annoying Matthew.. STOP spamming. > > Well you're not wrong so there's no need to keep the public involved. It's best discussed in public or not discussed at all, so list included. Your usual intention to tease, is more useful towards instant messaging. > Sorry I was just playing around. I've noticed your penchant for alignment and > felt the need to tease you a bit about it. > > Also you've got two spaces again. One novice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_spacing#Computer_era > > Matthew > > ps. No ulterior motive; it was all in good fun and I'm sorry if I've been a > nuisance. > I know, we've had enough fun already let's not waste more time and bits. With that, I consider the thread completely exhausted beyond all points.
Re: Future of X.org?
Tue, 02 Jul 2019 11:19:17 +0300 cho...@jtan.com > > Matthew Worthless thread, worthless comments, worthless Matthew. STOP spamming.
Re: Future of X.org?
li...@wrant.com writes: > Tue, 02 Jul 2019 08:40:35 +0300 cho...@jtan.com > > > > Also I don't need to fix your email system's inability to classify spam. > > YOUR mail server reputation is negative, fix your setup.. STOP spamming. IWFM Matthew ps. Two dots *and* two spaces? Try harder.
Re: Future of X.org?
Tue, 02 Jul 2019 08:40:35 +0300 cho...@jtan.com > > Also I don't need to fix your email system's inability to classify spam. YOUR mail server reputation is negative, fix your setup.. STOP spamming. > Matthew >
Re: Future of X.org?
li...@wrant.com writes: > You're misreading something, or talking to yourself, making corrections. > Your emails ended up in the spam twice so far, do something about that.. Two dots again? We've been over this. > Your emails came in as spam twice so far, maybe do something about that? Get it together. It's just counting. Also I don't need to fix your email system's inability to classify spam. Matthew
Re: Future of X.org?
I just love reading the drama that's always on this list. I've been using OpenBSD since 2.0 and the decisions of the team never failed me even when gobbles did his thing. If X11 wasn't secure enough for OpenBSD then Theo and his crew would write OpenX. They've fixed NetBSD, SSH, and generally available encryption. and I'm sure he'll tell me I'm wrong about this message. I love him for it. Xenocara does everything I need it to. Why mess with a good thing. The OP just asked, "Relevant to OpenBSD?" The answer is not really.
Re: Future of X.org?
I will reply you to clarify some things but I agree with Ingo and we should let the thread die. On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 07:11:37PM +, Roderick wrote: > > On Mon, 1 Jul 2019, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado wrote: > > > Can you show me what missing Wayland part is bigger than DRM+Mesa+LLVM?. > > What do you want to say with the question? He was quoting "The missing parts are not so big but nobody is working on that". That's the context. You're right. DRM and Mesa are not part of X11. Long time ago the Linux kernel developers moved part of the graphical drivers out of Xorg. At that time, the Xorg drivers (userland) had direct access to the kernel *and the hardware*. From a security point of view, the hole was quite big. That part of the project was named DRM. KMS is the kernel framebuffer and uses DRM. Now, after of a lot of work and pain (by jsg@ and kettenis@), we have both the DRM drivers and the framebuffer. Mesa was only used for 3D but now some drivers (iirc AMD) require it for 2D. Also, Mesa requires LLVM. Xenocara is now running (except for some old drivers) on top of that. The hardest part of the problem is solved. If someone thinks that the code is small, please check how much code was imported for that. Now, the missing parts. As Leonid mentioned, we need something to handle the input events in the kernel. There is probably something small (compared to the other parts) missing in Mesa. And add some flavors/new ports to the ports tree (not a big problem). So, the big bloat is running now on your OpenBSD system because we needed that to make the recent graphics cards to work with Xorg. Nobody can avoid that. Also, thanks to that work, now systems with AMD or Intel graphics cards are more secure. Even if someday we have wayland in ports/base, both will convive for a long time. If you have a use case for X11/Xorg not covered by Wayland, start to testing your systems now with some Linux distro which includes a good Wayland support (probably Arch Linux is the cleanest distro for this) and report what you need to upstream. That will help more to OpenBSD (and you) that writing a never ending number of emails to a random thread. This last part is not about you Rodrigo, I'm talking to everyone who is complaining about the Xorg future. Cheers. > > As far as I understand, neither DRM nor Mesa are parts of (original) > X11. Further, you read in Wikipedia: > > - > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Rendering_Manager > > DRM was first developed as the kernel space component of the X Server's > Direct Rendering Infrastructure,[1] but since then it has been used by other > graphic stack alternatives such as Wayland. > -- > > And > > -- > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesa_(computer_graphics) > > Besides 3D applications such as games, modern display servers (X.org's > Glamor or Wayland's Weston) use OpenGL/EGL; therefore all graphics typically > go through Mesa. > --- > > In the german Wikipedia you read: > > > https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/EGL_(Programmierschnittstelle) > > Mesa 3D – ist zurzeit die einzige freie Implementierung von EGL (und > etlichen weiteren graphic rendering APIs) > - > > Namely, the only free implementation of EGL is Mesa 3D. And EGL is > needed by Wayland. > > For all these cool desktop (or freedesktop) things, like turbo accelerated > 3 or 4D rendering, the bloat will be necessary, be it in X11, Wayland > or also plan9 rio if it is once ported to OpenBSD (that would be by > the way a good idea). > > Rodrigo -- Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado http://juanfra.info
Re: Future of X.org?
Mon, 1 Jul 2019 12:52:56 -0700 Michael Forney > On 2019-07-01, Roderick wrote: > > Namely, the only free implementation of EGL is Mesa 3D. And EGL is > > needed by Wayland. > > I'm not an OpenBSD user, just an interested bystander, but I want to > point out that the second part of this statement is false. Wayland > also supports shared memory buffers. In fact, I'm writing this message > from a Wayland desktop that has no GL whatsoever. > Michael, since you are not an OpenBSD user.. please, tell us more about this software that is not part of, and does not (yet) run on our OpenBSD systems. You can't really get us more interested in our graphics stack. But please, use reddit to tell us more since we're not reading it there.
Re: Future of X.org?
On 2019-07-01, Roderick wrote: > Namely, the only free implementation of EGL is Mesa 3D. And EGL is > needed by Wayland. I'm not an OpenBSD user, just an interested bystander, but I want to point out that the second part of this statement is false. Wayland also supports shared memory buffers. In fact, I'm writing this message from a Wayland desktop that has no GL whatsoever.
Re: Future of X.org?
Mon, 01 Jul 2019 20:52:24 +0300 cho...@jtan.com > li...@wrant.com writes: > > Mon, 01 Jul 2019 07:09:41 +0300 cho...@jtan.com > > > > > > I don't think I'll be relying on software from such confused individuals > > > any time soo > > n. > > > > Since when? Make a note: your long lines will never fit on a punch card. > > I haven't used a punch card since ... well ever. I have my limits but they're > not 72. > > Matthew You're misreading something, or talking to yourself, making corrections. Your emails ended up in the spam twice so far, do something about that.. > ps. Yes, I did that on purpose. > You're not doing anything.
Re: Future of X.org?
On Mon, 1 Jul 2019, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado wrote: Can you show me what missing Wayland part is bigger than DRM+Mesa+LLVM?. What do you want to say with the question? As far as I understand, neither DRM nor Mesa are parts of (original) X11. Further, you read in Wikipedia: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Rendering_Manager DRM was first developed as the kernel space component of the X Server's Direct Rendering Infrastructure,[1] but since then it has been used by other graphic stack alternatives such as Wayland. -- And -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesa_(computer_graphics) Besides 3D applications such as games, modern display servers (X.org's Glamor or Wayland's Weston) use OpenGL/EGL; therefore all graphics typically go through Mesa. --- In the german Wikipedia you read: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/EGL_(Programmierschnittstelle) Mesa 3D – ist zurzeit die einzige freie Implementierung von EGL (und etlichen weiteren graphic rendering APIs) - Namely, the only free implementation of EGL is Mesa 3D. And EGL is needed by Wayland. For all these cool desktop (or freedesktop) things, like turbo accelerated 3 or 4D rendering, the bloat will be necessary, be it in X11, Wayland or also plan9 rio if it is once ported to OpenBSD (that would be by the way a good idea). Rodrigo
Re: Future of X.org?
li...@wrant.com writes: > Mon, 01 Jul 2019 07:09:41 +0300 cho...@jtan.com > > > > I don't think I'll be relying on software from such confused individuals > > any time soo > n. > > Since when? Make a note: your long lines will never fit on a punch card. I haven't used a punch card since ... well ever. I have my limits but they're not 72. Matthew ps. Yes, I did that on purpose.
Re: Future of X.org?
Ingo Schwarze writes: > the voice of reason. Listen to it. Matthew
Re: Future of X.org?
Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado wrote: > On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 06:39:01PM +0300, li...@wrant.com wrote: > > Mon, 1 Jul 2019 17:13:44 +0200 Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado > > > > > On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 05:20:20PM +0300, li...@wrant.com wrote: > > > > Mon, 1 Jul 2019 00:46:33 +0200 Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 09:09:08PM +, Roderick wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 30 Jun 2019, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope, you misunderstood the text. > > > > > > > > > > > > No. It is *you* that do not understand what X11 is and want it > > > > > > death. > > > > > > A very destructive attitude. > > > > > > > > > > You're the only one with a destructive attitude here. I'm trying to > > > > > help > > > > > you because usually people doesn't understand how wayland works. > > > > > > > > You can't do without YOU understanding basics of X11, do something > > > > else.. > > > > Juan, I don't trust your lack of any qualification for even feature > > > > bait. > > > > > > Show me where I am wrong. Enlighten us with your qualification No Name. > > > > > > > Here you go wrong on all points.. Next time, bring 100% more experience. > > > > Sat, 29 Jun 2019 20:45:14 +0200 Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado > > > > > > > > The missing parts are not so big but nobody is working on that. > > > > > > I dont' know why people are so sad. X11 should have died long time ago. > > > > > > > This is not exactly inspirational, neither convincing. Try again later.. > > Juan, I still can not find one single piece of text where you were right. > > Can you show me what missing Wayland part is bigger than DRM+Mesa+LLVM?. I used Wayland on Debian for few weeks. One day all of a sudden screen rotated on my laptop and I couldn't find any way to fix it. I think Wayland is far from beeing stable.
Re: Future of X.org?
Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado writes: > Can you show me what missing Wayland part is bigger than DRM+Mesa+LLVM?. Probably, but that's not my problem. > After the personal attack, I was hoping a more elaborated answer. There was no personal attack. That you feel there was reveals little more than the fragile state of your ego. Wayland adds little or nothing of value while changing everything. The Wayland crowd have the bigger point to prove. The onus is on them to prove that there's a problem, not on the people who have been working successfully for 3 decades to prove that there isn't. Matthew
Re: Future of X.org?
Hi Leonid, Leonid Bobrov wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 07:41:41PM +0300: > No, you three (...) are wrong, I doesn't matter who is wrong, please stop discussing that. What matters is that code gets written, tested, improved, and eventually committed that improves the situation. > protecting a bloat called X. Well, i did happen to do some minor work on Xenocara lately, even if it was only related to documentation. The reason we maintain Xenocara is not that everybody loves it so much. There is indeed consensus that it suffers from considerable design flaws. The reason we maintain it is that, if you want to make something better, the better solution must be fully implemented, tested, and committed before the old system can be removed. I have no idea which steps exactly are involved in that, and whether and how it is feasible, but it is blatantly obvious we are very far from the point where deleting Xenocara could possibly be considered. Either way, i'm very thankful for matthieu@, jsg@, and others maintaining Xenocara and the related kernel parts *because they manage to keep that stuff surprisingly reliable and functional* given how complicated it all is. > The only thing we miss for Wayland in base is libxml and it's not > as bloated as shit called DRM, Mesa and X.org, so it's perfectly > acceptable, Frankly, there is not much point in non-developers discussing whether additions to base are acceptable. Feel free to suggest specific patches for base, but when developers voice doubts, save yourself a lot of trouble and organize your work as a port instead. It is *much, much* easier to get something into ports, and to get it tested there, than to get something into base. Getting something into base is often a challenging task even for an experienced developer. Also, getting something into base is easier when a long-standing, well-tested port already exists. > Juan, if you help me Wait a second, juanfra@ is a prolific porter who is already contributing a lot to OpenBSD. Like every developer, he is free to choose what he wants to work on. > with wscons then we can have working Wayland > compositors running outside of X session in 2019 at OpenBSD. You might have a point that ws*(4) and ws*(9) documentation could possibly be improved - i'm not completely sure, but i dimly remember running into problems trying to use features of these systems in the past. Consider reading the ws* code and figuring out what exactly it does, then sending patches to improve the documentation. That is how documentation gets better: people reading the code, understanding, and describing it. And everybody, please stop sending messages if you have nothing new to say that is of substance. The usefulness of this thread has somewhat lessened of late. Yours, Ingo
Re: Future of X.org?
On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 07:25:21PM +0300, li...@wrant.com wrote: > Mon, 1 Jul 2019 17:56:18 +0200 Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado > > > On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 06:39:01PM +0300, li...@wrant.com wrote: > > > Mon, 1 Jul 2019 17:13:44 +0200 Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 05:20:20PM +0300, li...@wrant.com wrote: > > > > > Mon, 1 Jul 2019 00:46:33 +0200 Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 09:09:08PM +, Roderick wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. It is *you* that do not understand what X11 is and want it > > > > > > > death. > > > > > > > A very destructive attitude. > > > > > > > > > > > > You're the only one with a destructive attitude here. I'm trying to > > > > > > help > > > > > > you because usually people doesn't understand how wayland works. > > > > > > > > > > You can't do without YOU understanding basics of X11, do something > > > > > else.. > > > > > Juan, I don't trust your lack of any qualification for even feature > > > > > bait. > > > > > > > > Show me where I am wrong. Enlighten us with your qualification No Name. > > > > > > > > > > Here you go wrong on all points.. Next time, bring 100% more experience. > > > > > > Sat, 29 Jun 2019 20:45:14 +0200 Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado > > > > > > > > > > > The missing parts are not so big but nobody is working on that. > > > > > > > > I dont' know why people are so sad. X11 should have died long time ago. > > > > > > > > > > This is not exactly inspirational, neither convincing. Try again later.. > > > Juan, I still can not find one single piece of text where you were right. > > > > > > > Can you show me what missing Wayland part is bigger than DRM+Mesa+LLVM?. > > > > After the personal attack, I was hoping a more elaborated answer. > > > > All messages sent to you only through the list in public.. > > You can not see it: you are wrong. Now, cover your ears. > No, you three (gwes, Roderick and "lists") are wrong, I see assholes protecting a bloat called X. The only thing we miss for Wayland in base is libxml and it's not as bloated as shit called DRM, Mesa and X.org, so it's perfectly acceptable, but the masturbating monkey like you doesn't want security, you want a slow, insecure and bloated shit called X. Juan, if you help me with wscons then we can have working Wayland compositors running outside of X session in 2019 at OpenBSD.
Re: Future of X.org?
On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 05:20:20PM +0300, li...@wrant.com wrote: > Mon, 1 Jul 2019 00:46:33 +0200 Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado > > > On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 09:09:08PM +, Roderick wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, 30 Jun 2019, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado wrote: > > > > > > > Nope, you misunderstood the text. > > > > > > No. It is *you* that do not understand what X11 is and want it death. > > > A very destructive attitude. > > > > You're the only one with a destructive attitude here. I'm trying to help > > you because usually people doesn't understand how wayland works. > > You can't do without YOU understanding basics of X11, do something else.. > Juan, I don't trust your lack of any qualification for even feature bait. Show me where I am wrong. Enlighten us with your qualification No Name. -- Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado http://juanfra.info
Re: Future of X.org?
Mon, 1 Jul 2019 17:56:18 +0200 Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado > On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 06:39:01PM +0300, li...@wrant.com wrote: > > Mon, 1 Jul 2019 17:13:44 +0200 Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado > > > > > On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 05:20:20PM +0300, li...@wrant.com wrote: > > > > Mon, 1 Jul 2019 00:46:33 +0200 Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 09:09:08PM +, Roderick wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > No. It is *you* that do not understand what X11 is and want it > > > > > > death. > > > > > > A very destructive attitude. > > > > > > > > > > You're the only one with a destructive attitude here. I'm trying to > > > > > help > > > > > you because usually people doesn't understand how wayland works. > > > > > > > > You can't do without YOU understanding basics of X11, do something > > > > else.. > > > > Juan, I don't trust your lack of any qualification for even feature > > > > bait. > > > > > > Show me where I am wrong. Enlighten us with your qualification No Name. > > > > > > > Here you go wrong on all points.. Next time, bring 100% more experience. > > > > Sat, 29 Jun 2019 20:45:14 +0200 Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado > > > > > > > > The missing parts are not so big but nobody is working on that. > > > > > > I dont' know why people are so sad. X11 should have died long time ago. > > > > > > > This is not exactly inspirational, neither convincing. Try again later.. > > Juan, I still can not find one single piece of text where you were right. > > Can you show me what missing Wayland part is bigger than DRM+Mesa+LLVM?. > > After the personal attack, I was hoping a more elaborated answer. > All messages sent to you only through the list in public.. You can not see it: you are wrong. Now, cover your ears.
Re: Future of X.org?
On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 06:39:01PM +0300, li...@wrant.com wrote: > Mon, 1 Jul 2019 17:13:44 +0200 Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado > > > On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 05:20:20PM +0300, li...@wrant.com wrote: > > > Mon, 1 Jul 2019 00:46:33 +0200 Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 09:09:08PM +, Roderick wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 30 Jun 2019, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Nope, you misunderstood the text. > > > > > > > > > > No. It is *you* that do not understand what X11 is and want it death. > > > > > A very destructive attitude. > > > > > > > > You're the only one with a destructive attitude here. I'm trying to help > > > > you because usually people doesn't understand how wayland works. > > > > > > You can't do without YOU understanding basics of X11, do something else.. > > > Juan, I don't trust your lack of any qualification for even feature bait. > > > > > > > Show me where I am wrong. Enlighten us with your qualification No Name. > > > > Here you go wrong on all points.. Next time, bring 100% more experience. > > Sat, 29 Jun 2019 20:45:14 +0200 Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado > > > > > The missing parts are not so big but nobody is working on that. > > > > I dont' know why people are so sad. X11 should have died long time ago. > > > > This is not exactly inspirational, neither convincing. Try again later.. > Juan, I still can not find one single piece of text where you were right. Can you show me what missing Wayland part is bigger than DRM+Mesa+LLVM?. After the personal attack, I was hoping a more elaborated answer. -- Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado http://juanfra.info
Re: Future of X.org?
Mon, 1 Jul 2019 17:13:44 +0200 Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado > On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 05:20:20PM +0300, li...@wrant.com wrote: > > Mon, 1 Jul 2019 00:46:33 +0200 Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado > > > > > On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 09:09:08PM +, Roderick wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sun, 30 Jun 2019, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado wrote: > > > > > > > > > Nope, you misunderstood the text. > > > > > > > > No. It is *you* that do not understand what X11 is and want it death. > > > > A very destructive attitude. > > > > > > You're the only one with a destructive attitude here. I'm trying to help > > > you because usually people doesn't understand how wayland works. > > > > You can't do without YOU understanding basics of X11, do something else.. > > Juan, I don't trust your lack of any qualification for even feature bait. > > Show me where I am wrong. Enlighten us with your qualification No Name. > Here you go wrong on all points.. Next time, bring 100% more experience. Sat, 29 Jun 2019 20:45:14 +0200 Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado > > The missing parts are not so big but nobody is working on that. > > I dont' know why people are so sad. X11 should have died long time ago. > This is not exactly inspirational, neither convincing. Try again later.. Juan, I still can not find one single piece of text where you were right.
Re: Future of X.org?
Mon, 01 Jul 2019 07:09:41 +0300 cho...@jtan.com > > I don't think I'll be relying on software from such confused individuals any > time soon. Since when? Make a note: your long lines will never fit on a punch card. > Matthew >
Re: Future of X.org?
li...@wrant.com writes: > You can't do without YOU understanding basics of X11, do something else.. > Juan, I don't trust your lack of any qualification for even feature bait. Two dots? This thing should never have more than one dot. How about: > You can't do without YOUR understanding X11 basics; go do something else. Slightly awkward but still gramatically correct. Matthew
Re: Future of X.org?
Mon, 1 Jul 2019 02:22:02 +0300 Leonid Bobrov > I make a mistake by writting this mail, but: > > X Window System is just a shit windowing system while Wayland is a simple, > fast and secure display server protocol. > (Well, almost simple, this XML dependance is overkill.) > > You people protecting X make me doubt that OpenBSD aims security, I am > agree with Linus Torvalds who called us monkeys. > Yes, it's a mistake. Normally, nothing interferes with addition of ports. When and if this new protocol proves useful, consider switching just then.
Re: Future of X.org?
Mon, 1 Jul 2019 00:46:33 +0200 Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado > On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 09:09:08PM +, Roderick wrote: > > > > On Sun, 30 Jun 2019, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado wrote: > > > > > Nope, you misunderstood the text. > > > > No. It is *you* that do not understand what X11 is and want it death. > > A very destructive attitude. > > You're the only one with a destructive attitude here. I'm trying to help > you because usually people doesn't understand how wayland works. You can't do without YOU understanding basics of X11, do something else.. Juan, I don't trust your lack of any qualification for even feature bait.
Re: Future of X.org?
On Mon, 1 Jul 2019, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado wrote: Xorg is the most insecure software in base. Why? Because it has bugs? Or because, in oppossite to wayland, it can listen to outside connections if configured so (by default it does not)? If you only care about the remote apps, with wayland you can still run the apps within wayland. "ssh -X" will work fine. I never do ssh -X. Nonsense in a LAN. If X11 is so bad for you, then sure also nfs. Should it also be deletet? it is not a big lost for obvious reasons. It is not a big lost *for you*. Rodrigo.
Re: Future of X.org?
Roderick writes: > > > On Sun, 30 Jun 2019, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado wrote: > > > You can run (local or remote) X11 applications inside of a Wayland > > compositor. > > The following contradicts your above assertion: > > https://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html#heading_toc_j_8 Wayland. The software product brought to you by the people with a FAQ containing this answer: To support remote rendering you need to define a rendering API, which is something I've been very careful to avoid doing. followed by this question: Why wasn't D-Bus used instead of the Wayland IPC mechanism? and then finally this answer: The alternative is to write a Wayland specific GL binding API, say, WaylandGL. I don't think I'll be relying on software from such confused individuals any time soon. Matthew
Re: Future of X.org?
On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 09:09:08PM +, Roderick wrote: > > On Sun, 30 Jun 2019, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado wrote: > > > Nope, you misunderstood the text. > > No. It is *you* that do not understand what X11 is and want it death. > A very destructive attitude. You're the only one with a destructive attitude here. I'm trying to help you because usually people doesn't understand how wayland works. X11 and Wayland are both protocols. Xorg is just a server and will die because nobody contributes to it. As usual, a lot of people complains but nobody expend their time working on those projects. The X11 protocol will live for decades. Xorg will die. Xorg is the most insecure software in base. Running your X11 apps inside of Wayland will be more secure than running the same apps inside of a full installation of Xorg. > > > "This doesn't mean that remote rendering won't be possible with Wayland, > > it just means that you will have to put a remote rendering server on top > > of Wayland. One such server could be the X.org server". > > You quote the text and are unable to get the conclusion: having > wayland, if you need X11, then you must implement an X11 server. The X11 server for wayland has been available for years. > > Is it not clear from the text that for upgrading wayland to X11, > you must implement X11, and the autor avoided it for keeping it simple? The author wanted a secure and low latency alternative to X11 for local use, not remote. He didn't want a reimplementation of X11. There is not a "upgrading" thing. Anything using GTK, EFL or QT will work transparently on wayland. And you still have compatibility with X11 available. > > Is it not clear that wayland is *never* a substitute of X11? > > You confuse X11 with a graphical display, such the old ones of > Amiga or MacOS. It was always possible to have it in unix. But > that was never the purpose of X11. The graphic display is only > a byproduct of X11. > > I remember in the 1990s that it was possible to run a comercial > X11 in Macs: They had their graphical display, but that was neither X11 > nor a substituite of it. But you are trying to convince us that > wayland is a substitute of X11, that X11 must die. Again. Nope. Wayland is a substitute for the layer bellow of the local graphical apps. The most common use of X11 nowadays. If you only care about the remote apps, with wayland you can still run the apps within wayland. "ssh -X" will work fine. The only missing part here is the client-server architecture to send unencrypted traffic over the network. Which for a OS like OpenBSD, it's not a big lost for obvious reasons. I'm not trying to convince you. I only replied because you said: "I also have no much idea of what is wayland". And now you're ranting and complaining how destructive I am. I'm not the problem here. > > And Xorg / xenocara is not bloat: it runs on meager X11 terminals. > The bloat will come with wayland. Right. The Xorg project code is quite small. > > And X11 imposes an standard. Programs done as X11 clients may run in > any OS display in other. Wayland will bring chaos. X11 brought insecurity. Have a nice day and for the next time, try not to be an ass with people who is trying to help you. -- Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado http://juanfra.info
Re: Future of X.org?
I make a mistake by writting this mail, but: On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 09:09:08PM +, Roderick wrote: > > On Sun, 30 Jun 2019, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado wrote: > > > Nope, you misunderstood the text. > > No. It is *you* that do not understand what X11 is and want it death. > A very destructive attitude. > No, it's your attitude is destructive. > > "This doesn't mean that remote rendering won't be possible with Wayland, > > it just means that you will have to put a remote rendering server on top > > of Wayland. One such server could be the X.org server". > > You quote the text and are unable to get the conclusion: having > wayland, if you need X11, then you must implement an X11 server. > > Is it not clear from the text that for upgrading wayland to X11, > you must implement X11, and the autor avoided it for keeping it simple? > > Is it not clear that wayland is *never* a substitute of X11? > > You confuse X11 with a graphical display, such the old ones of > Amiga or MacOS. It was always possible to have it in unix. But > that was never the purpose of X11. The graphic display is only > a byproduct of X11. > > I remember in the 1990s that it was possible to run a comercial > X11 in Macs: They had their graphical display, but that was neither X11 > nor a substituite of it. But you are trying to convince us that > wayland is a substitute of X11, that X11 must die. > > And Xorg / xenocara is not bloat: it runs on meager X11 terminals. > The bloat will come with wayland. > > And X11 imposes an standard. Programs done as X11 clients may run in > any OS display in other. Wayland will bring chaos. > > Rodrigo > You are a liar, the Xenocara is a bloat. X11 is a bloat and its implementation called X.org is a greater bloat. Mesa is a bloat, it's a shit fat C++ library. X Window System is just a shit windowing system while Wayland is a simple, fast and secure display server protocol. (Well, almost simple, this XML dependance is overkill.) You people protecting X make me doubt that OpenBSD aims security, I am agree with Linus Torvalds who called us monkeys.
Re: Future of X.org?
On Sun, 30 Jun 2019, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado wrote: Nope, you misunderstood the text. No. It is *you* that do not understand what X11 is and want it death. A very destructive attitude. "This doesn't mean that remote rendering won't be possible with Wayland, it just means that you will have to put a remote rendering server on top of Wayland. One such server could be the X.org server". You quote the text and are unable to get the conclusion: having wayland, if you need X11, then you must implement an X11 server. Is it not clear from the text that for upgrading wayland to X11, you must implement X11, and the autor avoided it for keeping it simple? Is it not clear that wayland is *never* a substitute of X11? You confuse X11 with a graphical display, such the old ones of Amiga or MacOS. It was always possible to have it in unix. But that was never the purpose of X11. The graphic display is only a byproduct of X11. I remember in the 1990s that it was possible to run a comercial X11 in Macs: They had their graphical display, but that was neither X11 nor a substituite of it. But you are trying to convince us that wayland is a substitute of X11, that X11 must die. And Xorg / xenocara is not bloat: it runs on meager X11 terminals. The bloat will come with wayland. And X11 imposes an standard. Programs done as X11 clients may run in any OS display in other. Wayland will bring chaos. Rodrigo
Re: Future of X.org?
On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 03:59:55PM +, Roderick wrote: > > > On Fri, 28 Jun 2019, gwes wrote: > > > I regularly run programs on one machine connected to a display > > on another machine. AFAIK, the current state of Wayland makes > > that difficult. I confess to not following it closely. > > I also do it, and I also have no much idea of what is wayland. > > But I have the impression that some people want to substitute X11 > with something that is not a replacement for it, that has other > functionality. They confuse X11 with a mere graphical surface. You can run (local or remote) X11 applications inside of a Wayland compositor. -- Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado http://juanfra.info
Re: Future of X.org?
On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 06:55:42PM +, Roderick wrote: > > > On Sun, 30 Jun 2019, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado wrote: > > > You can run (local or remote) X11 applications inside of a Wayland > > compositor. > > The following contradicts your above assertion: > > https://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html#heading_toc_j_8 Nope, you misunderstood the text. "This doesn't mean that remote rendering won't be possible with Wayland, it just means that you will have to put a remote rendering server on top of Wayland. One such server could be the X.org server". So, you will need a nested X11 server. Like you need on Windows or MacOS. That's all. You will see a desktop (compositor) running on top of Wayland, a browser (just an example) window using also Wayland and your X11 applications running like native applications. -- Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado http://juanfra.info
Re: Future of X.org?
On Sun, 30 Jun 2019, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado wrote: You can run (local or remote) X11 applications inside of a Wayland compositor. The following contradicts your above assertion: https://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html#heading_toc_j_8 Rod.
Re: Future of X.org?
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019, gwes wrote: I regularly run programs on one machine connected to a display on another machine. AFAIK, the current state of Wayland makes that difficult. I confess to not following it closely. I also do it, and I also have no much idea of what is wayland. But I have the impression that some people want to substitute X11 with something that is not a replacement for it, that has other functionality. They confuse X11 with a mere graphical surface. Rodrigo
Re: Future of X.org?
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 12:29:40PM -0700, Chris Cappuccio wrote: > Leonid Bobrov [mazoc...@disroot.org] wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 01:56:43PM -0400, Christopher Turkel wrote: > > > > First, I'd like to blame Xenocara for this pain porting Wayland to > > OpenBSD (because building Mesa from ports would be an opportunity), > > right now to build Mesa with Wayland support we need to import > > Wayland in Xenocara and all its dependencies (including libxml) in base. > > > > Why not simply have a Wayland-appropriate Mesa option in the ports tree? > That's appropriate only if we build a module which then gets dlopen()'ed by Mesa in Xenocara. > > Fifth, almost nobody in OpenBSD cares about Wayland and personally I > > don't see an opportunity in protocol which requires XML. > > > > Sounds like something that belongs in the ports tree > Not really, we accepted worse crap than XML: DRM code from Linux, especially AMDGPU; X.org; LLVM. So libxml in base won't be that harmful to us, so maybe even radically removing X.org and having a sane Wayland compositor in base will only benefit us in terms of security by default? Still too bad there are no other alternatives, it's just XML is a bloat, so basically we replace elephant X with horse Wayland. > > The epoll() problem is solved at FreeBSD and NetBSD by using epoll-shim, > > it's epoll() emulation via kqueue(), DragonFly BSD still prefers not > > using epoll-shim and writting kqueue() code instead, but Peter Must > > (the current maintainer of Wayland in DragonFly) is going to use > > epoll-shim for libinput while still maintaining kqueue() code in > > reference Wayland library. > > So basically, the problems are already mostly solved. That makes for lots > of options for someone who wants to port Wayland to OpenBSD. > The Wayland library itself is already ported (check OpenBSD WIP repo, I opened PR there but it updates to a previous Wayland release, I didn't bother to port a new release yet because I am worried about input handling in wscons which doesn't have documentation on that), but it's useless without actual compositors. While wscons is not documented you can't hope that someone will port Wayland compositors unless you are going to import evdev just like FreeBSD and DragonFly BSD did it because nobody is willing to work with undocumented syscons. Surprisingly wscons suits Wayland even better than evdev because it's possible to do keylogging with evdev while it's impossible to do keylogging with wscons if you open /dev/wskbd* and /dev/wsmouse* with O_NONBLOCK flag, that means only compositor will have direct access to input no matter what user runs it.
Re: Future of X.org?
Leonid Bobrov [mazoc...@disroot.org] wrote: > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 01:56:43PM -0400, Christopher Turkel wrote: > > First, I'd like to blame Xenocara for this pain porting Wayland to > OpenBSD (because building Mesa from ports would be an opportunity), > right now to build Mesa with Wayland support we need to import > Wayland in Xenocara and all its dependencies (including libxml) in base. > Why not simply have a Wayland-appropriate Mesa option in the ports tree? > Fifth, almost nobody in OpenBSD cares about Wayland and personally I > don't see an opportunity in protocol which requires XML. > Sounds like something that belongs in the ports tree > The epoll() problem is solved at FreeBSD and NetBSD by using epoll-shim, > it's epoll() emulation via kqueue(), DragonFly BSD still prefers not > using epoll-shim and writting kqueue() code instead, but Peter Must > (the current maintainer of Wayland in DragonFly) is going to use > epoll-shim for libinput while still maintaining kqueue() code in > reference Wayland library. So basically, the problems are already mostly solved. That makes for lots of options for someone who wants to port Wayland to OpenBSD.
Re: Future of X.org?
If you want an idea when X11 will die, watch Debian Linux. When they drop it, you know the end is coming. Right now, they do not even default to Wayland. On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 3:25 PM Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado < i...@juanfra.info> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 05:06:49PM -0400, gwes wrote: > > > > > > On 6/28/19 1:56 PM, Christopher Turkel wrote: > > > Probably someday. X won’t be going away anytime soon. > > > > > > On Friday, June 28, 2019, Nathan Hartman > wrote: > > > > > > > Came across this: > > > > > > > > https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item=X.Org- > > > > Maintenance-Mode-Quickly > > > > > > > > Long story short, Red Hat hopes to switch from X.Org to Wayland and > > > > expects X.Org to go into "hard maintenance mode" after that. > > > > > > > > Relevant to OpenBSD? > > > > > > I regularly run programs on one machine connected to a display > > on another machine. AFAIK, the current state of Wayland makes > > that difficult. I confess to not following it closely. > > > > Implementing something as huge as Wayland in the kernel > > mega-bloat. As a tightly coupled server process, maybe. > > Sorta like X with a very different interface. > > We have the "mega-bloat" implemented in the kernel. It's the KMS/DRM thing. > The compositor is a userland program. > > The missing parts are not so big but nobody is working on that. > > > > > It also seems to assume a heavyweight desktop suite > > to implement common X features Mega-bloat. > > https://swaywm.org/ <- an i3 inspired wayland compositor > > > > > If I'm wrong, please point out sources. > > Otherwise for my usage it's not nearly ready and > > requires some complex porting/additional programs. > > I dont' know why people are so sad. X11 should have died long time ago. > Xorg is just a big keylogger and will never be secure. KMS bought some > of time for Xorg but it should be die for good. > > > -- > Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado http://juanfra.info > >
Re: Future of X.org?
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 05:06:49PM -0400, gwes wrote: > > > On 6/28/19 1:56 PM, Christopher Turkel wrote: > > Probably someday. X won’t be going away anytime soon. > > > > On Friday, June 28, 2019, Nathan Hartman wrote: > > > > > Came across this: > > > > > > https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item=X.Org- > > > Maintenance-Mode-Quickly > > > > > > Long story short, Red Hat hopes to switch from X.Org to Wayland and > > > expects X.Org to go into "hard maintenance mode" after that. > > > > > > Relevant to OpenBSD? > > > > I regularly run programs on one machine connected to a display > on another machine. AFAIK, the current state of Wayland makes > that difficult. I confess to not following it closely. > > Implementing something as huge as Wayland in the kernel > mega-bloat. As a tightly coupled server process, maybe. > Sorta like X with a very different interface. We have the "mega-bloat" implemented in the kernel. It's the KMS/DRM thing. The compositor is a userland program. The missing parts are not so big but nobody is working on that. > > It also seems to assume a heavyweight desktop suite > to implement common X features Mega-bloat. https://swaywm.org/ <- an i3 inspired wayland compositor > > If I'm wrong, please point out sources. > Otherwise for my usage it's not nearly ready and > requires some complex porting/additional programs. I dont' know why people are so sad. X11 should have died long time ago. Xorg is just a big keylogger and will never be secure. KMS bought some of time for Xorg but it should be die for good. -- Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado http://juanfra.info
Re: Future of X.org?
On 6/28/19 1:56 PM, Christopher Turkel wrote: Probably someday. X won’t be going away anytime soon. On Friday, June 28, 2019, Nathan Hartman wrote: Came across this: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item=X.Org- Maintenance-Mode-Quickly Long story short, Red Hat hopes to switch from X.Org to Wayland and expects X.Org to go into "hard maintenance mode" after that. Relevant to OpenBSD? I regularly run programs on one machine connected to a display on another machine. AFAIK, the current state of Wayland makes that difficult. I confess to not following it closely. Implementing something as huge as Wayland in the kernel mega-bloat. As a tightly coupled server process, maybe. Sorta like X with a very different interface. It also seems to assume a heavyweight desktop suite to implement common X features Mega-bloat. If I'm wrong, please point out sources. Otherwise for my usage it's not nearly ready and requires some complex porting/additional programs. geoff steckel
Re: Future of X.org?
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 01:56:43PM -0400, Christopher Turkel wrote: > Probably someday. X won’t be going away anytime soon. > > On Friday, June 28, 2019, Nathan Hartman wrote: > > > Came across this: > > > > https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item=X.Org- > > Maintenance-Mode-Quickly > > > > Long story short, Red Hat hopes to switch from X.Org to Wayland and > > expects X.Org to go into "hard maintenance mode" after that. > > > > Relevant to OpenBSD? > > > First, I'd like to blame Xenocara for this pain porting Wayland to OpenBSD (because building Mesa from ports would be an opportunity), right now to build Mesa with Wayland support we need to import Wayland in Xenocara and all its dependencies (including libxml) in base. Second, someone needs to either port existing Wayland implementation (currently I am aware only of two implementations, one is written in C and the other one is written in Rust) or write own implementation from scratch. Third, only Linux has fully working Wayland, DragonFly BSD was first to port Wayland, but the problem is the same at every *BSD: no sane kqueue() code which replaces epoll() one, credentials support is incomplete (needs bits for PID), the tests need to be changed because in their current state they'll only pass on Linux. Fourth, to port actual compositors we need to port libinput which depends on epoll and evdev. The problem here is to add wscons support because wscons is not documented enough. FreeBSD and DragonFly BSD solve this problem by porting evdev itself, I guess that's because their syscons is not documented too. We don't need libinput if we are going to write our own compositors, but that's impossible while wscons is not documented. Fifth, almost nobody in OpenBSD cares about Wayland and personally I don't see an opportunity in protocol which requires XML. The epoll() problem is solved at FreeBSD and NetBSD by using epoll-shim, it's epoll() emulation via kqueue(), DragonFly BSD still prefers not using epoll-shim and writting kqueue() code instead, but Peter Must (the current maintainer of Wayland in DragonFly) is going to use epoll-shim for libinput while still maintaining kqueue() code in reference Wayland library.
Re: Future of X.org?
Probably someday. X won’t be going away anytime soon. On Friday, June 28, 2019, Nathan Hartman wrote: > Came across this: > > https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item=X.Org- > Maintenance-Mode-Quickly > > Long story short, Red Hat hopes to switch from X.Org to Wayland and > expects X.Org to go into "hard maintenance mode" after that. > > Relevant to OpenBSD? >
