On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 09:09:08PM +0000, 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
No comments:
Post a Comment