1

Topic: Xorg vs Wayland

Xorg it is better. It is is better studied, it is is better thought over from the point of view of load distribution (loading on the server, that is is closer to the person). And the difference in productivity between wayland and xorg cannot be great. In addition XOrg gives a decoupling point - if there is a network protocol it is possible (bindings) to make client bindings in any programming language, for example Java or C#, on pure instead of atop C-shnyh implementations xlib or xcb. It was simple someone laziness to refine existing and he decided to do the (NIH-syndrome).

2

Re: Xorg vs Wayland

Hello, Ejnstok Fajr, you wrote: > Xorg it is better. It is is better studied, it is is better thought over from the point of view of load distribution (loading on the server, that is is closer to the person). > And the difference in productivity between wayland and xorg cannot be great. > In addition XOrg gives a decoupling point - if there is a network protocol it is possible (bindings) to make client bindings in any programming language, for example Java or C#, on pure instead of atop C-shnyh implementations xlib or xcb. - All fire wood should live in one place. Let live in DRI (OGL + Vulkan). - XOrg - g th mammoth." The best level of scrutiny "does not mean its best architecture. About problems of its architecture the last 20 years were not told only by the lazy. If the transport layer is beaten by nails to architecture - that it only on . > it was simple someone laziness to refine existing and he decided to do the (NIH-syndrome). Wayland is and there is improving XOrg. Or you insist especially on a title? I.e. it was necessary to name it XOrg.2 that you confused nothing?)) personally I am surprised, why so late decided to rewrite XOrg. On the other hand, I remember that conflict when XOrg separated from XServer-x86. , they out of the blue lost ~5 years, alas. Besides, long developed Vulkan, it was necessary to let out simultaneously OGL 3, 4, and 4.5. As a result, for today in drawing area in  the uttermost brothel. Wayland is an attempt to put things in order. Rather late, , but it is better late, than never.

3

Re: Xorg vs Wayland

Hello, Tyomchik, you wrote: Those> You generally used , or repeat for journalists? Generally, Wayland the former developers  develop. I.e. people who understand question subtleties differently better you and me.) ) Those> Wayland in a current state Those> 1) brakes. Is not present BRAKES. Thus gym shoes and the gnome sit for a long time atop wayland. I.e., on the contrary, that Plasma did not brake, she should live atop Wayland. Those> 2) terrible glitches with a mouse Those> 3) does not see wacom a pad Those> 4) is not on friendly terms with Nvidia cards. This all questions of fire wood, instead of architecture. On the popular equipment all APPRX. Those> I do not understand, what for this shit here already 7 try  that under title Wayland, Mir. Do not try, and for a long time use. For the modern cards with their big storage the architecture statefull composer, than served the "" architecture stateless command pipeline which demanded copying on everyone , for example, at simple drag and drop of windows of top level (without change of the sizes of a window) more approaches. I.e. you, like, not the journalist, but about such "trifle", quit, forgot? Well and, important still that methods, ,  directly depend on equipment possibility here is - modern  can take almost all part of operation on themselves. I.e. the user-levelnyj a layer should not be engaged in such questions at all, he should draw only in the graphic plane selected to it, remaining - not its care. Experience Windows Vista/Windows7 and above showed that this correct direction of development of the modern graphic architecture. In Windows too not all came at once smoothly, but , ground. For example, in this architecture the X-server is only one of clients Wayland and itself it turns out easier - performs on the side of less operation. On right now it it is implemented through the fictitious elementary video driver, i.e. all  "loading" can be removed this gradually from . Approximately as the X-server under Windows (as any of modern on the basis of DX) works. In general, analog Wayland in Windows is DXGI. RTFM, as . .

4

Re: Xorg vs Wayland

Hello, vdimas, you wrote: V> Generally, Wayland the former developers  develop. I.e. people who understand question subtleties differently better you and me.)) yes at developers  to a campaign of a hand from an ass grew since the childhood. Those>> 4) is not on friendly terms with Nvidia cards. V> this all questions of fire wood, instead of architecture. On the popular equipment all APPRX. Shta? It nVidia that not popular iron? And fire wood they write, instead of  "community".... <<RSDN@Home 1.0.0 alpha 5 rev. 0>>

5

Re: Xorg vs Wayland

Hello, CreatorCray, you wrote: V>> Generally, Wayland the former developers  develop. I.e. people who understand question subtleties differently better you and me.)) CC> yes at developers  to a campaign of a hand from an ass grew since the childhood. Why? They are not guilty, what architecture graphic  and the scenario of their usage cardinally exchanged in due course, and  there should be all the same? Those>>> 4) is not on friendly terms with Nvidia cards. V>> this all questions of fire wood, instead of architecture. On the popular equipment all APPRX. CC> Shta? It nVidia that not popular iron? The newest  nVidia? - Certainly is not present. And so on  nVidia 7-miletnej prescription perfectly all worked for me. CC> and fire wood they write, instead of  "community". Correctly, this task it is necessary from  to remove on  level because within the limits of one project such big task with normal quality not to cover.