Looking at it fairly cursorily, it looks like a Wayland core with an x
windows shim *if needed* is actually a better way to go long term, as
X-windows (like PostScript) is full of code that 99% of people never use.

So on the surface it looks like Wayland would be faster and use a lot
less memory.

I am sure however that there are hidden gotchas.

So: interested to hear from everyone.

--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

Am 08.01.2024 um 12:42:03 Uhr schrieb The Natural Philosopher:

> Looking at it fairly cursorily, it looks like a Wayland core with an
> x windows shim *if needed* is actually a better way to go long term,
> as X-windows (like PostScript) is full of code that 99% of people
> never use.

What is the problem with that?

I like X11, it does what it should and can be customized.

From Wayland, I only hear about problems with graphic drivers (mostly
Nvidia's crappy blob).

On 08/01/2024 14:37, Marco Moock wrote:
> Am 08.01.2024 um 12:42:03 Uhr schrieb The Natural Philosopher:
>
>> Looking at it fairly cursorily, it looks like a Wayland core with an
>> x windows shim *if needed* is actually a better way to go long term,
>> as X-windows (like PostScript) is full of code that 99% of people
>> never use.
>
> What is the problem with that?
>
it introduces a huge CPU, memory, programming and support overhead for
something that is (almost) never used.

> I like X11, it does what it should and can be customized.
>
It's been buggered till it works OK, sure...

> From Wayland, I only hear about problems with graphic drivers (mostly
> Nvidia's crappy blob).
>

Ok, that's the sort of thing I was interested in...

--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>So: interested to hear from everyone.

Working very nicely here on Ubuntu 22.04, no problem with graphics
drivers (Lenovo notebook with Intel graphics). It's btw. a requirement
if you want to use Waydroid, and since I have a couple of Android apps I
want to use on this notebook this was imho the easiest way to run them.

-jw-

--

And now for something completely different...

On Mon, 08 Jan 2024 12:42:03 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Looking at it fairly cursorily, it looks like a Wayland core with an x
> windows shim *if needed* is actually a better way to go long term, as
> X-windows (like PostScript) is full of code that 99% of people never use.
>
> So on the surface it looks like Wayland would be faster and use a lot
> less memory.
>
> I am sure however that there are hidden gotchas.
>
> So: interested to hear from everyone.

Implementations of the X11 protocol (such as the XFree server) provide a
wide variety of features that are not present in Wayland. For me, the
availability of those X11 features outweigh the lightweight footprint
of Wayland.

I want and need the pickup truck of X11 to do my graphical work; you
(apparently) are considering the convenience of the sedan that Wayland
offers you. It would be a shame if I dictated that you could only drive
a pickup truck (because /I/ drive one), just as it would be if you
(or anyone else) dictated that I must drive a sedan because /you/ do.

Just my two cents worth.
--
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills We Trust"

On 08/01/2024 15:15, Joerg Walther wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> So: interested to hear from everyone.
>
> Working very nicely here on Ubuntu 22.04, no problem with graphics
> drivers (Lenovo notebook with Intel graphics). It's btw. a requirement
> if you want to use Waydroid, and since I have a couple of Android apps I
> want to use on this notebook this was imho the easiest way to run them.
>
> -jw-
>
OK, thanks for that. I read that Debian was headed that way. I have
probably done with Nvidia cards anyway...

Out of curiosity, what is the OS memory footprint with no user level
apps running? Just te GUI?

ISTR that on my *86 machines its broadly 60Mybte

--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

On 08/01/2024 15:29, Lew Pitcher wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Jan 2024 12:42:03 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Looking at it fairly cursorily, it looks like a Wayland core with an x
>> windows shim *if needed* is actually a better way to go long term, as
>> X-windows (like PostScript) is full of code that 99% of people never use.
>>
>> So on the surface it looks like Wayland would be faster and use a lot
>> less memory.
>>
>> I am sure however that there are hidden gotchas.
>>
>> So: interested to hear from everyone.
>
> Implementations of the X11 protocol (such as the XFree server) provide a
> wide variety of features that are not present in Wayland. For me, the
> availability of those X11 features outweigh the lightweight footprint
> of Wayland.
>
But no one has ever elucidated *what those features actually are*.

Its all very well to invoke 'proof by assertion' but it's rather an
unsatisfactory justification.

> I want and need the pickup truck of X11 to do my graphical work; you
> (apparently) are considering the convenience of the sedan that Wayland
> offers you. It would be a shame if I dictated that you could only drive
> a pickup truck (because /I/ drive one), just as it would be if you
> (or anyone else) dictated that I must drive a sedan because /you/ do.
>
> Just my two cents worth.

I don't think anyone (as far as I can tell) is saying that you wont be
able to run an X11 server *on top* of Wayland, if that's what you want.

So you van have your F150 body on a Ferrari chassis.

--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>Out of curiosity, what is the OS memory footprint with no user level
>apps running? Just te GUI?
>
>ISTR that on my *86 machines its broadly 60Mybte

It's much more of course, with all the eye candy: ~480Mbyte, screen
resolution full-HD.

-jw-

--

And now for something completely different...

On Mon, 08 Jan 2024 15:52:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 08/01/2024 15:29, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Jan 2024 12:42:03 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> Looking at it fairly cursorily, it looks like a Wayland core with an x
>>> windows shim *if needed* is actually a better way to go long term, as
>>> X-windows (like PostScript) is full of code that 99% of people never use.
>>>
>>> So on the surface it looks like Wayland would be faster and use a lot
>>> less memory.
>>>
>>> I am sure however that there are hidden gotchas.
>>>
>>> So: interested to hear from everyone.
>>
>> Implementations of the X11 protocol (such as the XFree server) provide a
>> wide variety of features that are not present in Wayland. For me, the
>> availability of those X11 features outweigh the lightweight footprint
>> of Wayland.
>>
> But no one has ever elucidated *what those features actually are*.

Hyperbole, at it's best. "No one"? Really?

OK, for one thing, I can't live without networked display (run a client
program on one system with it's display on another (and the window manager
on a third).

Now, you can't say that "no one" has ever told you what features of X11
Wayland doesn't have. I've given you one.

> Its all very well to invoke 'proof by assertion' but it's rather an
> unsatisfactory justification.

>> I want and need the pickup truck of X11 to do my graphical work; you
>> (apparently) are considering the convenience of the sedan that Wayland
>> offers you. It would be a shame if I dictated that you could only drive
>> a pickup truck (because /I/ drive one), just as it would be if you
>> (or anyone else) dictated that I must drive a sedan because /you/ do.
>>
>> Just my two cents worth.
>
> I don't think anyone (as far as I can tell) is saying that you wont be
> able to run an X11 server *on top* of Wayland, if that's what you want.

But, that's explicitly /not/ what I want.

> So you van have your F150 body on a Ferrari chassis.

Why would I settle for such a clumsy hybrid, when I can have the real
thing?

--
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills We Trust"

For what it's worth, I'm not going to get into a p*ssing match with you
about why X11 is better than Wayland. I don't care.

If you want to expound on why Wayland is better than X11, go right ahead.
But, if you are truely interested in the opinion of others, how about
listening, rather than defending?

--
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills We Trust"

On 08/01/2024 16:20, Lew Pitcher wrote:

>
> Hyperbole, at it's best. "No one"? Really?
>
> OK, for one thing, I can't live without networked display (run a client
> program on one system with it's display on another

RDP?

In my limited experience, RDP doesn't work, but it is supposed to, I
haven't devoted much effort to finding the problem.

Wayland has already obsolesced X11 and will eventually completely
eliminate it everywhere. There is no stopping this.

--
Blue-Maned_Hawk│shortens to Hawk│/
blu.mɛin.dÊ°ak/│he/him/his/himself/Mr.
blue-maned_hawk.srht.site
Big hammer make key go slow.

Marco Moock wrote:

> From Wayland, I only hear about problems with graphic drivers (mostly
> Nvidia's crappy blob).

That is the fault of nvidia, not the fault of Wayland.

--
Blue-Maned_Hawk│shortens to Hawk│/
blu.mɛin.dÊ°ak/│he/him/his/himself/Mr.
blue-maned_hawk.srht.site
(runs best on 143-core machines

Joerg Walther wrote:

>>ISTR that on my *86 machines its broadly 60Mybte
>
>It's much more of course, with all the eye candy: ~480Mbyte, screen
>resolution full-HD.

Sorry, I was wrong, this is what Gnome uses. How do I find out about
Wayland's memory usage?

-jw-

--

And now for something completely different...

Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Marco Moock wrote:
>
>> From Wayland, I only hear about problems with graphic drivers (mostly
>> Nvidia's crappy blob).
>
> That is the fault of nvidia, not the fault of Wayland.

Agree, but I wish the Linux Foundation would get b**ls
and forbid Nvidia usage in Linux until Nvidia opens up
their GPUs.

But the Foundation is now controlled by fortune 500
Companies, so that will never happen :(

--
[t]csh(1) - "An elegant shell, for a more... civilized age."
- Paraphrasing Star Wars

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
>
> I am sure however that there are hidden gotchas.

The only one I can see is "Wayland Only" on Linux will probably
force some people using Linux as a workstation at work to move
to Windows.

This would be necessary for people that need to admin proprietary
UNIX Systems. Where I work, on AIX, there are a couple of
proprietary admin tools that require X-forwarding. So without
X-forwarding on Wayland, people will need to go back to Windows.
Windows has that ability via a third party utility.

--
[t]csh(1) - "An elegant shell, for a more... civilized age."
- Paraphrasing Star Wars

On 08/01/2024 16:44, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
> Wayland has already obsolesced X11 and will eventually completely
> eliminate it everywhere. There is no stopping this.
>
As I said elsewhere, 'proof by assertion' is not an argument I consider
to be valid

--
WOKE is an acronym... Without Originality, Knowledge or Education.

On 08/01/2024 16:24, Lew Pitcher wrote:
> For what it's worth, I'm not going to get into a p*ssing match with you
> about why X11 is better than Wayland. I don't care.
>
> If you want to expound on why Wayland is better than X11, go right ahead.
> But, if you are truely interested in the opinion of others, how about
> listening, rather than defending?
>
I am neutral. No dog in the fight.

So far you have said 'remote desktop' and that's it.
I tried a remote x desktop once. it was crap.

--
“But what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!”

Mary Wollstonecraft

On 08/01/2024 16:46, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
> Marco Moock wrote:
>
>> From Wayland, I only hear about problems with graphic drivers (mostly
>> Nvidia's crappy blob).
>
> That is the fault of nvidia, not the fault of Wayland.
>
I wasn't asking whose fault it was, but which to a casual user might be
better.

lack of third party support is a valid negative,...

>
>

--
“But what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!”

Mary Wollstonecraft

On 08/01/2024 17:06, John McCue wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> I am sure however that there are hidden gotchas.
>
> The only one I can see is "Wayland Only" on Linux will probably
> force some people using Linux as a workstation at work to move
> to Windows.
>
> This would be necessary for people that need to admin proprietary
> UNIX Systems. Where I work, on AIX, there are a couple of
> proprietary admin tools that require X-forwarding. So without
> X-forwarding on Wayland, people will need to go back to Windows.
> Windows has that ability via a third party utility.
>
AIUI X11 would be able to run over Wayland

Again, I am not in possession of hard facts, but what it *seems* to be
like is:

- Wayland can replace X11 between a graphics API (Gnome etc) with
potentially a lower footprint and CPU usage for a faster response for
most desktop applications..
- It is not as full featured as X11, but there is no compatibility
problem with running X11 on top of Wayland, as is done in Mac OS-X.
- There are teething problem in the case of hardware driver support.

So far that seems to be it.

--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

On 08/01/2024 17:32, David W. Hodgins wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Jan 2024 07:42:03 -0500, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Looking at it fairly cursorily, it looks like a Wayland core with an x
>> windows shim *if needed* is actually a better way to go long term, as
>> X-windows (like PostScript) is full of code that 99% of people never use.
>>
>> So on the surface  it looks like Wayland would be faster and use a lot
>> less memory.
>>
>> I am sure however that there are hidden gotchas.
>>
>> So: interested to hear from everyone.
>
> While Xorg is a security nightmare that is no longer being maintained, it
> does still work and the security aspect can be mitigated with proper
> network
> security.
>
Is Xorg the bulk of the X11 windowing API?

> Wayland does work well for basic usage. However X11Forwarding for ssh, and
> synergy do not work. The synergy package is used for sharing one
> keyboard/mouse/copy and paste buffer between two or more computers)
>
> I use both X11Forwarding over ssh and synergy, so am sticking with Xorg
> for now.
>
> Regards, Dave Hodgins

Thanks for the 'atheistic' response :-)

--
“The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that
the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

- Bertrand Russell

On 08/01/2024 17:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 08/01/2024 16:24, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>> For what it's worth, I'm not going to get into a p*ssing match with you
>> about why X11 is better than Wayland. I don't care.
>>
>> If you want to expound on why Wayland is better than X11, go right ahead.
>> But, if you are truely interested in the opinion of others, how about
>> listening, rather than defending?
>>
> I am neutral. No dog in the fight.
>
> So far you have said 'remote desktop' and that's it.
> I tried a remote x desktop once. it was crap.
>

I think the thing with X is that you could choose where any specific
window was displayed, it is a cool idea. In the 30 or so years I've
known that, I've done it a handful of times.

On the other hand, I have used Remote Desktop (RDP) all the time. Worked
all day long on remote desktops.

On 08/01/2024 18:22, Pancho wrote:
> On 08/01/2024 17:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 08/01/2024 16:24, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>> For what it's worth, I'm not going to get into a p*ssing match with you
>>> about why X11 is better than Wayland. I don't care.
>>>
>>> If you want to expound on why Wayland is better than X11, go right
>>> ahead.
>>> But, if you are truely interested in the opinion of others, how about
>>> listening, rather than defending?
>>>
>> I am neutral. No dog in the fight.
>>
>> So far you have said 'remote desktop' and that's it.
>> I tried a remote x desktop once. it was crap.
>>
>
> I think the thing with X is that you could choose where any specific
> window was displayed, it is a cool idea. In the 30 or so years I've
> known that, I've done it a handful of times.
>
> On the other hand, I have used Remote Desktop (RDP) all the time. Worked
> all day long on remote desktops.
>
In every case where I might have wanted to use it, the overhead of
transmitting graphics over the network killed it. Far easier to send the
underlying data over the network and have a fat graphics client like a
web browser at the other end...

--
"And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch".

Gospel of St. Mathew 15:14

Am 08.01.2024 um 16:58:35 Uhr schrieb John McCue:

> Agree, but I wish the Linux Foundation would get b**ls
> and forbid Nvidia usage in Linux until Nvidia opens up
> their GPUs.

How is that compatible with the GPLv2?

As long as you don't include it directly in the kernel (it is a module
that a user can add that comes from a different source), it is legal to
use it.
It is also the user's decision to use it or use nouveau instead.

Most distributions ship nouveau by default, but offer an option to
install the blob from their non-free repo.

Am 08.01.2024 um 16:38:19 Uhr schrieb Pancho:

> On 08/01/2024 16:20, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>
> >
> > Hyperbole, at it's best. "No one"? Really?
> >
> > OK, for one thing, I can't live without networked display (run a
> > client program on one system with it's display on another
>
> RDP?

Isn't the same experience at all.
X11 remote windows are perfectly integrated in the desktop environment
of the remote machine.