Re: A simpler description of wayland

This is not unlike how, on Macintosh, you normally run without an X server unless you want to run an X client, in which case you start one and the X server interoperates with the Macintosh graphics. Or how on a virtualized guest the X server has special drivers to interoperate with the virtuali

Re: A simpler description of wayland

Hi Renaud, Uh? Remember the first part of my email: if this is really an issue, why not just create X version 12 which would keep every useful features of the X version 11 server but remove all the obsolete features? Dumping X just because it has some obsolete features looks to me as "jeter le

Re: A simpler description of wayland

Stefanos A. a écrit : 2011/1/6 Renaud Hebert > I wonder if it would be possible to add to X a third variant for local usage: use shared video memory to communicate between the client and the server. What would be the difference between th

Re: A simpler description of wayland

On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 10:44:27 +0200, Renaud Hebert wrote: Stefanos A. a écrit : 2011/1/6 Renaud Hebert > I wonder if it would be possible to add to X a third variant for local usage: use shared video memory to communicate between the clien

Re: A simpler description of wayland

2011/1/6 Renaud Hebert > I wonder if it would be possible to add to X a third variant for local > usage: use shared video memory to communicate between the client and the > server. > > What would be the difference between this and Wayland? > The lack of server fonts and other 20-year-old X11 ins

Re: A simpler description of wayland

Hello, my view is very different from yours. I wonder if discussing here can be interesting. >>The X server contains lots and lots of crufty old code going back to the 1980s that nobody uses and nobody (including the X developers) wants to maintain, but is required to claim to be an X server.<

Re: A simpler description of wayland

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 08:27:08PM -0500, ext dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: > The X server contains lots and lots of crufty old code going back to the > 1980s that nobody uses and nobody (including the X developers) wants to > maintain, but is required to claim to be an X server. One option is: >

Re: A simpler description of wayland

On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 20:43 -0500, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: > On 12/22, Josh Leverette wrote: > > No? wayland is a very separate project. It is not backwards compatible > > with X. It will run X programs in a copy of X. Nobody is panicking > > anyways. > > Yes, Wayland is a distinct project f

Re: A simpler description of wayland

On 12/22, Josh Leverette wrote: > No? wayland is a very separate project. It is not backwards compatible > with X. It will run X programs in a copy of X. Nobody is panicking > anyways. Yes, Wayland is a distinct project from X.org, but it, and all the work to make it possible, has been done by X d

Re: A simpler description of wayland

No? wayland is a very separate project. It is not backwards compatible with X. It will run X programs in a copy of X. Nobody is panicking anyways. On Dec 21, 2010, at 8:27 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: > The X server contains lots and lots of crufty old code going back to the > 1980s that no

A simpler description of wayland

The X server contains lots and lots of crufty old code going back to the 1980s that nobody uses and nobody (including the X developers) wants to maintain, but is required to claim to be an X server. One option is: 1) Move all the useful modern stuff out to the Linux kernel and separate librarie