this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2024
184 points (92.6% liked)

Linux

48310 readers
645 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Title

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lloram239@feddit.de 54 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (5 children)

X11 is an multiple decade old dinosaur, the developer decided it was growing too complex and no longer representing how graphics are done on modern systems and decided a rewrite. While doing so they decided to simplify some things along the way and in doing so they drastically overshoot their target and removed tons of fundamental functions that was present in X11 (stuff like being able to take screenshots, window manager, etc.). Some of that is slowly getting reimplemented and Wayland is getting closer to actually being a feature-parity X11 replacement, but it's also taken 15 years and is still not done. The whole drama is the conflict between people wanting it as default and the other group of people for which it simply doesn't work in its current state.

[–] rufus@discuss.tchncs.de 61 points 10 months ago (3 children)

That is partly correct. Wayland is not based on X.org. There is nothing rewritten, removed or simplified. It's an entirely new design, new code with a different license. And X11 isn't written by a single developer. XFree86 was started by 3 people, got maintained by an incorporated and then became X.org and sponsored by an industry consortium (the X.Org Foundation). Many many people and companies contributed. The rest is correct. It grew too complex and maintenance is a hassle. Wayland simplifies things and is a state of the art approach. Nobody removed features but they started from zero so it took a while to implement all important features. As of today we're almost there and Wayland is close to replacing X11.

[–] mub@lemmy.ml 19 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Also, doesn't Wayland do things x11 can't, or did badly, like Variable refresh rate ?

[–] cheviotveneer@sh.itjust.works 19 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Fractional scaling (per-display), input isolation...

[–] rufus@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 10 months ago

And it will become more as development focuses on Wayland. If you look at X11's release history, there is (and has been for quite some time) only the most important things going on. That doesn't necessarily mean things are impossible to do with X11. But it's just the way things are once something slowly gets replaced by something else.

[–] kevincox@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That is the definition of a rewrite, no? They started from scratch. Otherwise it would be a refactor, cleanup or overhaul.

And yes, it was more than one developer but Wayland was largely started by at-the-time X maintainers.

[–] rufus@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Hmmh, to me rewriting something means something like writing it again, or revising it. But it's entirely new, not based on the predecessor, they didn't have the old code or architecture in mind and it ended up in a different place with different features. So I don't see a "re-", just a "write". I'd say it's the same category of software (display servers / -protocols) but entirely different and independent from each other. I'd use the word 'rewrite' if they were dependent on each other in some form or if one was meant to replicate the other one.

[–] kevincox@lemmy.ml -1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I think that's generally the point of a rewrite. To start from scratch with a better architecture. If you weren't changing the architecture then you can probably just keep incrementally improving it.

[–] elauso@feddit.de 3 points 10 months ago

When you do a rewrite you want to create the same product as before just with better code / architecture. That's not what Wayland tries to do.

[–] zarkony@lemmy.zip 1 points 10 months ago

Yes, but the word rewrite implies that it would serve the same function and retain compatibility.

If someone wrote a new implementation of the x protocol, as a drop in replacement for the existing x.org server, you might call that a rewrite.

Wayland is an entirely different solution to the same problem. It doesn't follow the x protocol, and doesn't maintain compatibility with the x.org server.

[–] LeFantome@programming.dev 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I don’t know that I would say that Wayland is not based on X11. It is a rewrite, not a fork but it is the next chapter of a common history.

Wayland and Xorg do share a lot of code in a way. Libraries like libinput, libdrm, KMS, and Mesa are used by both.

[–] rufus@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I think @elauso@feddit.de did a better job explaining it... It's a rewrite if you're trying to create the same product as before. And that's not what Wayland is trying to do.

I mean we also don't say a car is a rewrite of a train (or vice versa) but they share some of the same components (wheels, seats, a driver...) And libinput, drm, mesa aren't copied to the source code. They're seperate projects and components/libraries that are used via an interface that makes them reusable. Lots of other projects also use the same set of libraries. For example networking. Or games that are built with the same game engine.

[–] Auzy@beehaw.org 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Similar to SystemD, a lot of the "other group of people" sometimes are people simply whinging too.

Like I saw one case where someone simply didn't want to upgrade their workflow.. And there were still people talking about Network Transparency as though it is something that has worked well on X11 within the last literally 20 years, or talking about standards.

That doesn't mean its perfect. But, when you say "feature Parity", there are features with Wayland which X11 hasn't caught up with, such as no massive gaping security issues. I'm not sure "feature parity" with X11 is a good idea, because don't forget, Xorg implements a print server too. A lot of the stuff simply needs to be implemented by the desktop environments.

But I agree, at the moment, its really whether about if we break some stuff temporarily, or keep waiting.. In my opinion though, the longer we wait, the longer the transition will take.

[–] lloram239@feddit.de 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Not really. Systemd had the complete opposite problem, it did far more than the previous hackery of shell scripts. The complaints were that it was too big, had too many features, violated Unix philosophy and was less deterministic. Systemd had no problem fully replacing init, cron, DNS and Co. Wayland simply can't replace X11 in it's current state, it just can't do a lot of basic things.

such as no massive gaping security issues.

That's an utter strawman that doesn't get any more true by repeating it. Nobody cares about display manager security at this point, since every app you run already has full system access anyway. Wayland security is like making sure the door is locked after the thief is already in the house. It might become relevant in a future when every app you run is in a Flatpak sandbox, but we are a very long way away from that. Even apps that use Flatpak are rarely sandboxed to the point that it would improve security. And on top of that, the sandboxing model Flatpak uses fundamentally doesn't really work with a lot of Unix tools, e.g. how would you Flatpak something like make?

[–] Auzy@beehaw.org 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

You haven't actually read that article which keeps getting reposted did you?

Some of it is stuff like "not all window managers do xxx", a lot of it is "my specific app (which might even be commercial and rather than bug the company who in paid thousands of dollars, let's blame Wayland). And yeah, should we wait until every window manager is 100% until we do anything. That's a generic statement, and they don't name them for a reason.

Oh, I use xkill, and it doesn't work. Well yeah, and you shouldn't necessarily be using it in xorg these days either lol

There are some valid things, but if you read through a lot of the beginning, it's actually just an opinion running around in circles.

You could literally halve that list pretty easily

And some things like DRM lease, I looked up, and it is supported by xwayland these days.

Some of it is stuff like "if the window manager crashes, you'll lose your session". Well yeah, that code would be in xorg instead, so it could crash there instead

Many xorg developers have also basically called xorg hot garbage..

It's funny how that keep saying xorg supports xxx. But if we look at the history, stuff like compiz and dri and such was basically tacked on. And that's the problem. Xorg was never designed for GPUs. It was designed for VGA cards like Tseng labs

It does some things better in Wayland already. The 15 year delay was in part because of NVIDIA screwing everyone around, and wasn't the fault of Wayland

If we're going to get pedantic about app support like the article, waydroid is broken on xorg as an example...

[–] Auzy@beehaw.org 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Actually, looking through it again, and its even more hilarious when I take a second look.

Another good example "Wayland is biased toward Linux and breaks BSD". The reference is from the NetBSD blog. The Netbsd marketshare is huge, so it's really important everyone holds back for them. The funny thing is that even gnome is missing features on NetBSD: https://wiki.netbsd.org/GNOME/ . So, should Wayland fix their OS for them?

To be clear for 90% of that whole link you've posted, it isn't the Wayland Development teams responsibility to pick up slack on other projects. It sucks that they won't be there for the beginning of the transition, but, if we transition earlier, they'll prioritise getting their crap together

[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 5 points 10 months ago

Took me long enough to learn what actually was the issue. Thanks for explaining! :)

[–] WindowsEnjoyer@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

On X I can do everything, on Wayland I can't:

  1. Enable hardware acceleration in some apps
  2. Games have greater latency
  3. Some games shadowing under wayland
  4. Nvidia sometimes crashes. Their "nvidia-open" driver doesn't work with Wayland at all
[–] Shalade@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

Half of what you said are either issues with your current compositor's implementation or Nvidia driver related issues, since Wayland on both KWin and Mutter under AMD don't present any of these issues, atleast for me, while I had the latency issue you mention with my older 3080 card.

The protocol is still under development after 25 years yes, but at the end of the day you vote with your wallet, and Nvidia clearly doesn't give a shit about open-source or Linux as a whole since we're a minority.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

You're mixing this around. It's Nvidia that doesn't support Wayland, not the inverse.

Bit like saying "Linux doesn't support Photoshop" instead of "Photoshop doesn't support Linux"

[–] Kangie@lemmy.srcfiles.zip 1 points 10 months ago

Nvidia sometimes crashes. Their "nvidia-open" driver doesn't work with Wayland at all

Really? It's been working for me since day 1.