Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
anyone on wayland?
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

 
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Desktop Environments
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
LoTeK
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 26 Jul 2012
Posts: 270

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:06 pm    Post subject: anyone on wayland? Reply with quote

hi,
has anyone used wayland yet?
Although I like the server-client model from the old X-server, I've read something about problems with shared libraries and that X is very bloated (because it's pretty old and things have changed). Moreover it's a bit strange to have such a big window-system with dwm on it. afaik the server-client model is still very good if you have more machines that are connected, so I will try wayland on my netbook.

edit: lol, dwm and dvtm both failed to compile on my lemote mips64 machine, but wayland compiled without problems... :)
_________________
"I want to see gamma rays! I want to hear X-rays! Do you see the absurdity of what I am? I can't even express these things properly because I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid limiting spoken language!"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wallsandfences
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 29 Mar 2010
Posts: 164

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is wayland any better for you than xorg from a userland-perspecitve?

Rüdiger
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LoTeK
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 26 Jul 2012
Posts: 270

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know because I haven't found a way to configure / launching wayland yet :) But I think wayland is pretty experimental at the moment so therefore if you just want a working system xorg is probably better and compared to other programs it's even not that large anymore.
_________________
"I want to see gamma rays! I want to hear X-rays! Do you see the absurdity of what I am? I can't even express these things properly because I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid limiting spoken language!"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GFCCAE6xF
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 06 Aug 2012
Posts: 229
Location: England, UK

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I really want to use it, but I have no issues with using X and have never thought of it as slow or bloated like people claim lately.

I will, however, use it when I can fully remove X and use 100% wayland, since as far as I can tell xWayland starts each 'legacy/X' app in its own little xorg server, this for me just sounds silly, I could end up with like 10 mini xorg servers running... 8O I want one or the other, not both and then some. Also I need nvidia blob sometimes soo... yeah.

I think wayland and weston are in an X11 overlay, if it works and you can play around with it though I don't know, It'd be nice to see wayland action on Gentoo :)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MalleRIM
Guru
Guru


Joined: 23 Jul 2007
Posts: 540
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wayland is in the tree, Weston is in the x11-overlay, but both are outdated versions. Solve the problem by renaming the ebuilds (better to use a local overlay for that) to the latest version (1.0.5). You will have to unmask the wayland use flag to compile wayland support for packages. Set it globally and try out GTK+3 on wayland, still without window decorations though. You will need GTK+ 3.7 from the gnome-overlay, since the latest version from the tree does not compile with mesa 9.0.1, when the wayland flag is set. Qt5 runs on wayland, but the gentoo ebuilds from the qt overlay don't allow that yet. That's the point I'm stuck at now, because I don't know much about ebuild development or the Qt build system.

About the rootless X-Server: Afaik only one XServer will run all the X applications and display their windows on Wayland. Early tests have shown that performance of an X application running atop Wayland is ironically often better than the performance of the same application running on X. The overhead is marginal.

X is very bloated. It supports a bunch of stuff that no modern day application uses and is nowadays merely a proxy to receive and pass on commands to those parts of the graphics and input stacks that do the bulk of the work (that X used to do), therefore causing lots of round trips. Developers do their best not to let the users feel these round trips, but that's not always easy.

Wayland does not just have better performance, but also eases development. Developers do back flips to get some graphical stuff running as well on X that wouldn't be a problem on Wayland. X is also prone to artifacts, a problem that the competitors' graphics stacks don't have. Even most X developers now support Wayland as the successor of X and that means something. Pretty much everyone involved agreed that in order to address the issues of X, a complete rewrite and a new protocol is needed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
depontius
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 2586

PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We could use a HowTo on this. It sounds like a little reorganization would also help.

I've known that Wayland in itself was not complete, that it at least needed Weston, and even that appears likely to be incomplete, because Wayland-ported versions of the toolkits would be needed.

I'm also not sure that a "window manager" is even philosophically in the cards for Wayland/Weston, or what fulfills the same function.

It might also be good to level set the expectations, with some sort of list of what can be made to work by a basic Wayland/Weston/toolkit installation, how to get some sort of X11 running on top of that, etc.

Right now we're not even up to any sort of starting gate, except for developers.
_________________
.sigs waste space and bandwidth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GFCCAE6xF
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 06 Aug 2012
Posts: 229
Location: England, UK

PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MalleRIM wrote:

About the rootless X-Server: Afaik only one XServer will run all the X applications and display their windows on Wayland. Early tests have shown that performance of an X application running atop Wayland is ironically often better than the performance of the same application running on X. The overhead is marginal.


Well, if you are correct that doesn't sound too bad actually, hopefully those applications running rootless will benefit from the "perfect frame every frame" thing or whatever it is.

I must admit I am not educated on the X vs Wayland front, most articles and of course comments I read about the whole thing seem incredibly biased towards one or the other with not much middle-ground and it doesnt help when 90% of the time google searches land you knee deep in the Moronix forums :roll:

Edit:
@depontius
A good thing to look at is RebeccaBlackOS - I guess if you look at what is done there anyone here could pretty much replicate it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LoTeK
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 26 Jul 2012
Posts: 270

PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
X is very bloated. It supports a bunch of stuff that no modern day application uses and is nowadays merely a proxy to receive and pass on commands to those parts of the graphics and input stacks that do the bulk of the work (that X used to do), therefore causing lots of round trips. Developers do their best not to let the users feel these round trips, but that's not always easy.

what does it support that is not needed anymore? Maybe a very stupid question, but why is it so hard to just wipe those features out?

Quote:
I've known that Wayland in itself was not complete, that it at least needed Weston, and even that appears likely to be incomplete, because Wayland-ported versions of the toolkits would be needed.

Ok, thats the reason why I can't launch wayland (wayland-only) :)

Quote:
I'm also not sure that a "window manager" is even philosophically in the cards for Wayland/Weston, or what fulfills the same function.

So the things that are controlled by an X-window-manager are built-in wayland?
_________________
"I want to see gamma rays! I want to hear X-rays! Do you see the absurdity of what I am? I can't even express these things properly because I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid limiting spoken language!"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
depontius
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 2586

PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 8:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LoTeK wrote:
Quote:
X is very bloated. It supports a bunch of stuff that no modern day application uses and is nowadays merely a proxy to receive and pass on commands to those parts of the graphics and input stacks that do the bulk of the work (that X used to do), therefore causing lots of round trips. Developers do their best not to let the users feel these round trips, but that's not always easy.

what does it support that is not needed anymore? Maybe a very stupid question, but why is it so hard to just wipe those features out?

X was conceived in the days when most graphics cards were dumb framebuffers, and "advanced" cards could draw lines and blit fonts. It was designed around communication with cards at a rather primitive level. It was also designed in days when "big" systems might even have a megabyte of RAM. Today that stuff that was once "accelerated" is now trivial, and stuff that we're working at accelerating wasn't even considered feasible.
_________________
.sigs waste space and bandwidth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
baaann
Guru
Guru


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 497
Location: uk

PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

depontius wrote:
We could use a HowTo on this. It sounds like a little reorganization would also help.

I've known that Wayland in itself was not complete, that it at least needed Weston, and even that appears likely to be incomplete, because Wayland-ported versions of the toolkits would be needed.

I'm also not sure that a "window manager" is even philosophically in the cards for Wayland/Weston, or what fulfills the same function.

It might also be good to level set the expectations, with some sort of list of what can be made to work by a basic Wayland/Weston/toolkit installation, how to get some sort of X11 running on top of that, etc.

Right now we're not even up to any sort of starting gate, except for developers.


kwin developers are currently working on implementing wayland as the main backend, quite a few articles on Martin Gräßlin(lead dev) blog and some interesting snippits on his google+ page

Also worth watching is The Luminosity of Free Software, Episode 6

I believe they are targeting Jan 2014 for full implementation
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dominique_71
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 1505
Location: Switzerland (Romandie)

PostPosted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wayland claim to offer more speed and better integration. What I don't understand is why they didn't integrated the toolkit directly into the window manager. It is how the Amiga OS was working, and it is no better way to go if you want to archive speed and integration.

And don't tell me it was no hardware abstraction layer on the Amiga OS, That's true, but today, Aros, a free clone of the Amigo OS do provide an hardware abstraction layer. It can run both natively and hosted. The result with the Gimp is that the hosted version start at least 5 time faster than the gentoo version in the same box. And even a little bit faster when run natively.

On Aros, like with the Amiga OS, the applications send their pixmaps directly to the server. I don't think you can do a more modern design. In fact, this is not about modernity, but about logic: what will be faster and what will provide the better integration?

Back in the 80ŝ, 2D was the only way to go, but as soon the first 3D chips comes into the markets, frenetics efforts was made to develop those 3D functionalities, that both on the hardware and software level. We are today in the same situation than in the 80's, but we are talking about 3D instead of 2D: Finally we get pieces of hardware enough powerful to make in 3D what could be done in 2D in the 80's.

But instead of using the full potential of modern hardware, what wayland offer is something in between that could certainly be done with X, and without loosing existing applications.
_________________
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading that text: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
miket
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 225
Location: Gainesville, FL, USA

PostPosted: Sat Apr 27, 2013 3:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MalleRIM wrote:
X is very bloated. It supports a bunch of stuff that no modern day application uses and is nowadays merely a proxy to receive and pass on commands to those parts of the graphics and input stacks that do the bulk of the work (that X used to do), therefore causing lots of round trips. Developers do their best not to let the users feel these round trips, but that's not always easy.

Let it not be said that I look disdainfully at every project at freedesktop.org. Especially after I saw Daniel Stone's presentation on Wayland, I'd like to give it a look. The thing I'd really like to see in Wayland is full network transparency, a thing that has been impared in X but still sort-of works. Early reports I read about Wayland said they had no network transport but that it would be straightforward to add. It seems they've made some progress at it.

The really attractive thing about Wayland is its clean reworking of things plus the obvious care that the developers are taking to make it so that old software doesn't suffer a bad bump. I can think of, ahem, another freedesktop.org project which could take a hint from them!

MalleRIM wrote:
Early tests have shown that performance of an X application running atop Wayland is ironically often better than the performance of the same application running on X.

Before I switched to Linux in 2005, I ran OS/2. (I'm very proud to say I've never used Windows as my main OS.) It used to amuse me no end that Windows (well, Windows 3.1) ran better on OS/2 than it did by itself on MS/DOS. Running X better than X is a good sign. It's an even better sign that they care about X clients still being able to run!

rorgoroth wrote:
most articles and of course comments I read about the whole thing seem incredibly biased towards one or the other with not much middle-ground

Well, I'm more to that middle ground on this one: it seems like Wayland holds promise, but I advert to the fact I've never tried it or looked at the code. I like the developers' attitude, though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dominique_71
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 1505
Location: Switzerland (Romandie)

PostPosted: Sat Apr 27, 2013 8:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

miket wrote:
Let it not be said that I look disdainfully at every project at freedesktop.org. Especially after I saw Daniel Stone's presentation on Wayland, I'd like to give it a look. The thing I'd really like to see in Wayland is full network transparency, a thing that has been impared in X but still sort-of works. Early reports I read about Wayland said they had no network transport but that it would be straightforward to add. It seems they've made some progress at it.

The really attractive thing about Wayland is its clean reworking of things plus the obvious care that the developers are taking to make it so that old software doesn't suffer a bad bump. I can think of, ahem, another freedesktop.org project which could take a hint from them!

MalleRIM wrote:
Early tests have shown that performance of an X application running atop Wayland is ironically often better than the performance of the same application running on X.

But like with Aros, this is only the startup time and some graphical tasks that will show some speed improvement. The parts of the applications doing the job, as the filters in gimp, do have their speed that depend mostly if not only on the processor power of a given box. I actually use computers to make work, not to play around.

miket wrote:
Before I switched to Linux in 2005, I ran OS/2. (I'm very proud to say I've never used Windows as my main OS.) It used to amuse me no end that Windows (well, Windows 3.1) ran better on OS/2 than it did by itself on MS/DOS. Running X better than X is a good sign. It's an even better sign that they care about X clients still being able to run!


I am a much older linux user than you, The path linux is following today is very different than in the 90'. Today, every thing can break other things, and even some developers consider it is OK: Udev break the kernel and tell: "We will not fix udev, fix your kernel instead." That's just an example... Polkit is even much worst, it can break anything and cause any kind of regression.

With wayland and its so called compatibility. Take a wm like fvwm, It will not work at all with wayland. It is not what I call compatibility but a regression to death. And why it is still peoples using fvwm today? This is because they want to make work with their computer, and do that work only 1 time. Fvwm is not just a wm, this is a toolkit at the same time, and you can do things with it than you can not even dream about with any other wm or desktop. And you will loose nothing when updating.

If you ask me what will be my next box? If updating mean I must loose years of works, I will just take my sombrero, a cigar and play domino games.
_________________
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading that text: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
miket
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 225
Location: Gainesville, FL, USA

PostPosted: Sat Apr 27, 2013 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In contrast to projects like PulseAudio, Hal, the disaster Kits, and Systemd, a hopeful thing about Wayland is that it appears that one of their ultimate goals is not to break things. There are still large parts of the project which are still not finished, so it remains to be seen how things will come out. All the same, there does not seem to be a hell-bent rush to get all the world switched over to the new framework as there is with that all-assimilating systemd. If anything, the emphasis seems to be more of the Do One Thing Well philosophy.

Dominique_71 wrote:
But like with Aros, this is only the startup time and some graphical tasks that will show some speed improvement. The parts of the applications doing the job, as the filters in gimp, do have their speed that depend mostly if not only on the processor power of a given box.

Well, sure. This is back to the old problem of identifying what binds the headway that a program makes. If X-on-Wayland incurs fewer client/server trips than native X11, that's a win for I/O-bound parts of the program. Those are the goals; we still have yet to see how it comes out in practice.

Dominique_71 wrote:
I actually use computers to make work, not to play around.

I do too. That's why I still haven't gone over that new-udev cliff. What's curious is that I find a similarity between X.org and systemd: they are both overly complicated and try to do wayyy too much. X got this way by having extensions bolted onto it over time, systemd did it much more rapidly and heedlessly of the risks of doing that.

Dominique_71 wrote:
With wayland and its so called compatibility. Take a wm like fvwm, It will not work at all with wayland. It is not what I call compatibility but a regression to death. And why it is still peoples using fvwm today? This is because they want to make work with their computer, and do that work only 1 time. Fvwm is not just a wm, this is a toolkit at the same time, and you can do things with it than you can not even dream about with any other wm or desktop. And you will loose nothing when updating.

I would also call Wayland broken if it turns out not to support X11 window managers like fvwm or Openbox (which I use on one machine). The fact that they won't work on right now does not invalidate the project; it's not done. From the project FAQ:
Quote:
I'm not deluding myself that any general purpose desktop Linux distribution will stop shipping X as we know it or as a Wayland client anytime soon. Nor should they, there will still be X applications to run and people expect that from a Linux desktop.

I also want network transparency, which also does not work yet. They identify that as outside the core functionality of Wayland (that Do One Thing Well thing) but an important problem to solve. One approach they have is a proxy setup along the lines of Xephyr. I'm here to tell you that Xephyr doesn't work perfectly. I'd hope it would work better in a Wayland remote setup.

One reason to take an interest in it now is that is still possible to influence how it comes out.

Dominique_71 wrote:
If you ask me what will be my next box? If updating mean I must loose years of works, I will just take my sombrero, a cigar and play domino games.

Wayland is still a way off. For your next machine, I'd be more fearful about those nasty overlords I mentioned on the first line of this message!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
depontius
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 2586

PostPosted: Sat Apr 27, 2013 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

miket wrote:
In contrast to projects like PulseAudio, Hal, the disaster Kits, and Systemd, a hopeful thing about Wayland is that it appears that one of their ultimate goals is not to break things. There are still large parts of the project which are still not finished, so it remains to be seen how things will come out. All the same, there does not seem to be a hell-bent rush to get all the world switched over to the new framework as there is with that all-assimilating systemd. If anything, the emphasis seems to be more of the Do One Thing Well philosophy.


One bit of confusion here is that most of the noise about Wayland seems to come from fanbois, and seems to be very much "Revolutionize (break) the world!" Then you occasionally hear from a real Wayland developer and hear a much more reasoned and reasonable story.
_________________
.sigs waste space and bandwidth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dominique_71
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 1505
Location: Switzerland (Romandie)

PostPosted: Sat Apr 27, 2013 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

miket wrote:
In contrast to projects like PulseAudio, Hal, the disaster Kits, and Systemd, a hopeful thing about Wayland is that it appears that one of their ultimate goals is not to break things. There are still large parts of the project which are still not finished, so it remains to be seen how things will come out. All the same, there does not seem to be a hell-bent rush to get all the world switched over to the new framework as there is with that all-assimilating systemd. If anything, the emphasis seems to be more of the Do One Thing Well philosophy.

I agree their ultimate goal is to not break things. But they are not alone and it remain to see how some majors distributions will integrate it. They already are pushing idiotic things like *kits, and even if I can understand the need of big paranoid companies for such functionalities, it is many distributions that doesn't provide the choice to not install them.

Another issue is to see how long projcts like QT or gtk+ will continue to develop 2 backends, one for X and one for wayland.

miket wrote:
Dominique_71 wrote:
But like with Aros, this is only the startup time and some graphical tasks that will show some speed improvement. The parts of the applications doing the job, as the filters in gimp, do have their speed that depend mostly if not only on the processor power of a given box.

Well, sure. This is back to the old problem of identifying what binds the headway that a program makes. If X-on-Wayland incurs fewer client/server trips than native X11, that's a win for I/O-bound parts of the program. Those are the goals; we still have yet to see how it comes out in practice.

I know that wayland is a big step in the right direction for a graphic server on GNU/Linux. But it is possible to make one more step forward, that is to integrate the toollkit into the server. This have not only the advantage to provide more speed and integration, but also the advantage to force the whole GNU/Linux community to find a common solution for the X applications.

miket wrote:
Dominique_71 wrote:
I actually use computers to make work, not to play around.

I do too. That's why I still haven't gone over that new-udev cliff. What's curious is that I find a similarity between X.org and systemd: they are both overly complicated and try to do wayyy too much. X got this way by having extensions bolted onto it over time, systemd did it much more rapidly and heedlessly of the risks of doing that.

I agree. If wayland make possible to run fvwm and with it, to get stuffs like a FvwmExpose function to be less flaky, I will be the first to be very happy, But for now, this is not the case.

miket wrote:
I would also call Wayland broken if it turns out not to support X11 window managers like fvwm or Openbox (which I use on one machine). The fact that they won't work on right now does not invalidate the project; it's not done. From the project FAQ:
Quote:
I'm not deluding myself that any general purpose desktop Linux distribution will stop shipping X as we know it or as a Wayland client anytime soon. Nor should they, there will still be X applications to run and people expect that from a Linux desktop.

I also want network transparency, which also does not work yet. They identify that as outside the core functionality of Wayland (that Do One Thing Well thing) but an important problem to solve. One approach they have is a proxy setup along the lines of Xephyr. I'm here to tell you that Xephyr doesn't work perfectly. I'd hope it would work better in a Wayland remote setup.

I never experimented visible problems with Xephyr, but with a thing as simple than opening 2 X sessions in the same computer. On my latop, this just freeze the synaptic driver and with it, the cursor on the 2 sessions.

miket wrote:
One reason to take an interest in it now is that is still possible to influence how it comes out.

I agree, but not completely. Some major distributions are already planing to ship wayland and remove X support. As they are the same than the ones pushing stuffs like *kits, it would be better if they make their own OS and stop polluting GNU/Linux with what the most paranoid of their big customers want, or with some idiotic desktop which is not even able to provide the users with some decent mouse focus policy. It is why at the first place I never used gnome more than 5 minutes.
_________________
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading that text: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dominique_71
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 1505
Location: Switzerland (Romandie)

PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I find this: demo, wayland zoom

That look nice, but it doesn't look to be very useful when you have several applications on the same desktop page and want to zoom a whole application window.. I am not talking of the window's decorations like its title bar, but about the window's content. In this demo, the whole window is zoomed, and go out of the screen...

So, a little double question. With wayland, will it be possible to zoom the content of a window, or to do what the Amiga OS was able to do in the 80's, to have different desktop pages at different resolutions?
_________________
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading that text: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dominique_71
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 1505
Location: Switzerland (Romandie)

PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dominique_71 wrote:
With wayland, will it be possible to zoom the content of a window, or to do what the Amiga OS was able to do in the 80's, to have different desktop pages at different resolutions?


I asked on irc. According to MonkeyofDoom, both should be possible. The question now is if, how and when...
_________________
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading that text: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rudregues
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 29 Jan 2013
Posts: 198

PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dominique_71 wrote:
Some major distributions are already planing to ship wayland and remove X support. As they are the same than the ones pushing stuffs like *kits, it would be better if they make their own OS and stop polluting GNU/Linux with what the most paranoid of their big customers want, or with some idiotic desktop which is not even able to provide the users with some decent mouse focus policy. It is why at the first place I never used gnome more than 5 minutes.
Which distros? And when?
_________________
Emerging en gentoo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Desktop Environments All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum