[froh]

Yes and your response in the whole thread reading top to bottom was the first one that really taught an old dog a new trick. I've been using gnu on x11 since 1991, been annoyed by fellow student's audio streams on my work station back then, and I've never heard about trusted vs untrusted x11 apps.

I wonder how this debate was mainstream? did some gamers try to squeeze 3 extra percent by taking the protocol out of local stacks? there must have been better ways to do that, without throwing out all X11 benefits?

to this day I'm annoyed I can't have a decent window manager integration on gWSL because the compositor doesn't implement the full window manager protocol.

[uecker]

See the ssh manpage for an explanation of untrusted/trusted clients. This debate was mainstream. Basically, some people presumable paid to work on Linux graphics decided to implement something new instead of doing their job, and gave talks about why X is fundamentally broken. I believe the driving force might have been the hope to support Linux on mobile or embedded devices, and X seems just unnecessary (although I think network transparency would be super useful on mobile devices). Some gamers certainly believed nonsense such as "all X programs are forced to use ancient drawing primitives and so programs will be much faster with Wayland". Wayland developers certainly did not do anything to stop such misconceptions. Later there was disappointment because obviously it was not faster (the drawing model for modern clients is essentially the same), but other myth such as the "fundamental security issue" prevailed.

[ElectroBuffoon]

It's like if Wayland is not just a graphical system, but a full business plan.

Control upstream, then companies wanting solutions will go to you first. Because why go to someone else in the FOSS market, when there is no certainty the code or standard (extension, protocol, etc) will get accepted, forcing you to maintain a fork? With IBM-RH and Ubuntu doings eg., it's hard to say FOSS is immune to vendor lock-in.

[throwaway7486]

> It's like if Wayland is not just a graphical system, but a full business plan. Control upstream, then companies wanting solutions will go to you first.

Wayland is open source with a fixed core protocol that's extremely stable, which anyone can build on. New protocols are constantly proposed. The core is minimal and defines how applications interact with the compositor to render and produce the final output. Control by a single entity is virtually impossible. Wayland ensures everyone has a voice because it's an open protocol which means discussion and development are done in the public.

[froh]

in _reality_ it gives stack owners full proprietary control.

specifically the wslg stack does not enable Linux gui apps to smoothly integrate with the Windows window manager, because some bits are missing in the Windows Wayland stack, clipboard, window decorations, thumbnails, maximize into a part of the monitor? nope. and no patches taken. supposed you figure where to offer them and how.

[throwaway7486]

It's unfair to claim Wayland is inherently different from X11 in this regard. Both are just specifications, and there are also proprietary implementations of the X11 protocol, primarily for Windows and enterprise settings.

[froh]

The point is: the X11 spec is much more complete.

[throwaway7486]

> Some gamers certainly believed nonsense such as "all X programs are forced to use ancient drawing primitives and so programs will be much faster with Wayland".

This is incorrect. Kristian Høgsberg has explicitly stated that a primary motivation for Wayland is the reduced need for a central X server, as many programs already bypass it.

[uecker]

A Wayland compositor is even more centralized as it combines compositor, Window manager, and server while in X these could be separate components. I also do not know any program that bypasses the X server. Are you talking about programs that you can start from the text console and which then do graphics directly? Those are very rare.

[throwaway7486]

There are reasons for those architecture differences.

Wayland is an evolution of the previous design. X11's architecture had clients sending drawing commands to the X server, a method that became limited and required extensions over time. Wayland's approach is: applications perform their own rendering into their own separate buffers, then tell the compositor when they are ready. The compositor takes those buffers to produce the final image.

Because those buffers are separate, enhanced security is a direct side effect. Wayland is the result of decades of experience and represents the current way of doing things.

[uecker]

Sorry, no modern X clients sends drawing commands. This is the nonsense I am talking about.

[throwaway7489]

Posting from another account.

I'm aware that extensions exist now, like present, which make it possible to send buffers, similar to how Wayland operates, so you don't have to do things the primitive way.

However, to claim to speak the X protocol, you still need to support the older functionality, that's what I mean by a tremendous amount of functionality to support. The moment you get rid of that old functionality, you've essentially created a new protocol, which is what Wayland is.

How is that point nonsense? I don't want to see X go, but I don't think it's reasonable to prevent progress.