Future of X.org?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
47 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Future of X.org?

Nathan Hartman
Came across this:

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=X.Org-Maintenance-Mode-Quickly

Long story short, Red Hat hopes to switch from X.Org to Wayland and
expects X.Org to go into "hard maintenance mode" after that.

Relevant to OpenBSD?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future of X.org?

Christopher Turkel
Probably someday. X won’t be going away anytime soon.

On Friday, June 28, 2019, Nathan Hartman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Came across this:
>
> https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=X.Org-
> Maintenance-Mode-Quickly
>
> Long story short, Red Hat hopes to switch from X.Org to Wayland and
> expects X.Org to go into "hard maintenance mode" after that.
>
> Relevant to OpenBSD?
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future of X.org?

Leonid Bobrov
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 01:56:43PM -0400, Christopher Turkel wrote:

> Probably someday. X won’t be going away anytime soon.
>
> On Friday, June 28, 2019, Nathan Hartman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Came across this:
> >
> > https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=X.Org-
> > Maintenance-Mode-Quickly
> >
> > Long story short, Red Hat hopes to switch from X.Org to Wayland and
> > expects X.Org to go into "hard maintenance mode" after that.
> >
> > Relevant to OpenBSD?
> >
>

First, I'd like to blame Xenocara for this pain porting Wayland to
OpenBSD (because building Mesa from ports would be an opportunity),
right now to build Mesa with Wayland support we need to import
Wayland in Xenocara and all its dependencies (including libxml) in base.

Second, someone needs to either port existing Wayland implementation
(currently I am aware only of two implementations, one is written in C
and the other one is written in Rust) or write own implementation from
scratch.

Third, only Linux has fully working Wayland, DragonFly BSD was first to
port Wayland, but the problem is the same at every *BSD: no sane
kqueue() code which replaces epoll() one, credentials support is
incomplete (needs bits for PID), the tests need to be changed because in
their current state they'll only pass on Linux.

Fourth, to port actual compositors we need to port libinput which
depends on epoll and evdev. The problem here is to add wscons support
because wscons is not documented enough. FreeBSD and DragonFly BSD solve
this problem by porting evdev itself, I guess that's because their
syscons is not documented too. We don't need libinput if we are going to
write our own compositors, but that's impossible while wscons is not
documented.

Fifth, almost nobody in OpenBSD cares about Wayland and personally I
don't see an opportunity in protocol which requires XML.

The epoll() problem is solved at FreeBSD and NetBSD by using epoll-shim,
it's epoll() emulation via kqueue(), DragonFly BSD still prefers not
using epoll-shim and writting kqueue() code instead, but Peter Must
(the current maintainer of Wayland in DragonFly) is going to use
epoll-shim for libinput while still maintaining kqueue() code in
reference Wayland library.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future of X.org?

gwes-2
In reply to this post by Christopher Turkel


On 6/28/19 1:56 PM, Christopher Turkel wrote:

> Probably someday. X won’t be going away anytime soon.
>
> On Friday, June 28, 2019, Nathan Hartman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Came across this:
>>
>> https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=X.Org-
>> Maintenance-Mode-Quickly
>>
>> Long story short, Red Hat hopes to switch from X.Org to Wayland and
>> expects X.Org to go into "hard maintenance mode" after that.
>>
>> Relevant to OpenBSD?
>>
I regularly run programs on one machine connected to a display
on another machine. AFAIK, the current state of Wayland makes
that difficult. I confess to not following it closely.

Implementing something as huge as Wayland in the kernel....
mega-bloat. As a tightly coupled server process, maybe.
Sorta like X with a very different interface.

It also seems to assume a heavyweight desktop suite
to implement common X features.... Mega-bloat.

If I'm wrong, please point out sources.
Otherwise for my usage it's not nearly ready and
requires some complex porting/additional programs.

geoff steckel

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future of X.org?

Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 05:06:49PM -0400, gwes wrote:

>
>
> On 6/28/19 1:56 PM, Christopher Turkel wrote:
> > Probably someday. X won’t be going away anytime soon.
> >
> > On Friday, June 28, 2019, Nathan Hartman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Came across this:
> > >
> > > https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=X.Org-
> > > Maintenance-Mode-Quickly
> > >
> > > Long story short, Red Hat hopes to switch from X.Org to Wayland and
> > > expects X.Org to go into "hard maintenance mode" after that.
> > >
> > > Relevant to OpenBSD?
> > >
> I regularly run programs on one machine connected to a display
> on another machine. AFAIK, the current state of Wayland makes
> that difficult. I confess to not following it closely.
>
> Implementing something as huge as Wayland in the kernel....
> mega-bloat. As a tightly coupled server process, maybe.
> Sorta like X with a very different interface.

We have the "mega-bloat" implemented in the kernel. It's the KMS/DRM thing.
The compositor is a userland program.

The missing parts are not so big but nobody is working on that.

>
> It also seems to assume a heavyweight desktop suite
> to implement common X features.... Mega-bloat.

https://swaywm.org/ <- an i3 inspired wayland compositor

>
> If I'm wrong, please point out sources.
> Otherwise for my usage it's not nearly ready and
> requires some complex porting/additional programs.

I dont' know why people are so sad. X11 should have died long time ago.
Xorg is just a big keylogger and will never be secure. KMS bought some
of time for Xorg but it should be die for good.


--
Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado http://juanfra.info

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future of X.org?

Christopher Turkel
If you want an idea when X11 will die, watch Debian Linux. When they drop
it, you know the end is coming. Right now, they do not even default to
Wayland.

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 3:25 PM Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 05:06:49PM -0400, gwes wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 6/28/19 1:56 PM, Christopher Turkel wrote:
> > > Probably someday. X won’t be going away anytime soon.
> > >
> > > On Friday, June 28, 2019, Nathan Hartman <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Came across this:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=X.Org-
> > > > Maintenance-Mode-Quickly
> > > >
> > > > Long story short, Red Hat hopes to switch from X.Org to Wayland and
> > > > expects X.Org to go into "hard maintenance mode" after that.
> > > >
> > > > Relevant to OpenBSD?
> > > >
> > I regularly run programs on one machine connected to a display
> > on another machine. AFAIK, the current state of Wayland makes
> > that difficult. I confess to not following it closely.
> >
> > Implementing something as huge as Wayland in the kernel....
> > mega-bloat. As a tightly coupled server process, maybe.
> > Sorta like X with a very different interface.
>
> We have the "mega-bloat" implemented in the kernel. It's the KMS/DRM thing.
> The compositor is a userland program.
>
> The missing parts are not so big but nobody is working on that.
>
> >
> > It also seems to assume a heavyweight desktop suite
> > to implement common X features.... Mega-bloat.
>
> https://swaywm.org/ <- an i3 inspired wayland compositor
>
> >
> > If I'm wrong, please point out sources.
> > Otherwise for my usage it's not nearly ready and
> > requires some complex porting/additional programs.
>
> I dont' know why people are so sad. X11 should have died long time ago.
> Xorg is just a big keylogger and will never be secure. KMS bought some
> of time for Xorg but it should be die for good.
>
>
> --
> Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado http://juanfra.info
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future of X.org?

Chris Cappuccio
In reply to this post by Leonid Bobrov
Leonid Bobrov [[hidden email]] wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 01:56:43PM -0400, Christopher Turkel wrote:
>
> First, I'd like to blame Xenocara for this pain porting Wayland to
> OpenBSD (because building Mesa from ports would be an opportunity),
> right now to build Mesa with Wayland support we need to import
> Wayland in Xenocara and all its dependencies (including libxml) in base.
>

Why not simply have a Wayland-appropriate Mesa option in the ports tree?

> Fifth, almost nobody in OpenBSD cares about Wayland and personally I
> don't see an opportunity in protocol which requires XML.
>

Sounds like something that belongs in the ports tree

> The epoll() problem is solved at FreeBSD and NetBSD by using epoll-shim,
> it's epoll() emulation via kqueue(), DragonFly BSD still prefers not
> using epoll-shim and writting kqueue() code instead, but Peter Must
> (the current maintainer of Wayland in DragonFly) is going to use
> epoll-shim for libinput while still maintaining kqueue() code in
> reference Wayland library.

So basically, the problems are already mostly solved. That makes for lots
of options for someone who wants to port Wayland to OpenBSD.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future of X.org?

Leonid Bobrov
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 12:29:40PM -0700, Chris Cappuccio wrote:

> Leonid Bobrov [[hidden email]] wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 01:56:43PM -0400, Christopher Turkel wrote:
> >
> > First, I'd like to blame Xenocara for this pain porting Wayland to
> > OpenBSD (because building Mesa from ports would be an opportunity),
> > right now to build Mesa with Wayland support we need to import
> > Wayland in Xenocara and all its dependencies (including libxml) in base.
> >
>
> Why not simply have a Wayland-appropriate Mesa option in the ports tree?
>

That's appropriate only if we build a module which then gets dlopen()'ed
by Mesa in Xenocara.

> > Fifth, almost nobody in OpenBSD cares about Wayland and personally I
> > don't see an opportunity in protocol which requires XML.
> >
>
> Sounds like something that belongs in the ports tree
>

Not really, we accepted worse crap than XML: DRM code from Linux,
especially AMDGPU; X.org; LLVM. So libxml in base won't be that harmful
to us, so maybe even radically removing X.org and having a sane Wayland
compositor in base will only benefit us in terms of security by default?
Still too bad there are no other alternatives, it's just XML is a bloat,
so basically we replace elephant X with horse Wayland.

> > The epoll() problem is solved at FreeBSD and NetBSD by using epoll-shim,
> > it's epoll() emulation via kqueue(), DragonFly BSD still prefers not
> > using epoll-shim and writting kqueue() code instead, but Peter Must
> > (the current maintainer of Wayland in DragonFly) is going to use
> > epoll-shim for libinput while still maintaining kqueue() code in
> > reference Wayland library.
>
> So basically, the problems are already mostly solved. That makes for lots
> of options for someone who wants to port Wayland to OpenBSD.
>

The Wayland library itself is already ported (check OpenBSD WIP repo, I
opened PR there but it updates to a previous Wayland release, I didn't
bother to port a new release yet because I am worried about input
handling in wscons which doesn't have documentation on that), but it's
useless without actual compositors. While wscons is not documented you
can't hope that someone will port Wayland compositors unless you are
going to import evdev just like FreeBSD and DragonFly BSD did it because
nobody is willing to work with undocumented syscons.

Surprisingly wscons suits Wayland even better than evdev because it's
possible to do keylogging with evdev while it's impossible to do
keylogging with wscons if you open /dev/wskbd* and /dev/wsmouse* with
O_NONBLOCK flag, that means only compositor will have direct access to
input no matter what user runs it.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future of X.org?

Roderick
In reply to this post by gwes-2


On Fri, 28 Jun 2019, gwes wrote:

> I regularly run programs on one machine connected to a display
> on another machine. AFAIK, the current state of Wayland makes
> that difficult. I confess to not following it closely.

I also do it, and I also have no much idea of what is wayland.

But I have the impression that some people want to substitute X11
with something that is not a replacement for it, that has other
functionality. They confuse X11 with a mere graphical surface.

Rodrigo

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future of X.org?

Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado
On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 03:59:55PM +0000, Roderick wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2019, gwes wrote:
>
> > I regularly run programs on one machine connected to a display
> > on another machine. AFAIK, the current state of Wayland makes
> > that difficult. I confess to not following it closely.
>
> I also do it, and I also have no much idea of what is wayland.
>
> But I have the impression that some people want to substitute X11
> with something that is not a replacement for it, that has other
> functionality. They confuse X11 with a mere graphical surface.

You can run (local or remote) X11 applications inside of a Wayland
compositor.


--
Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado http://juanfra.info

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future of X.org?

Roderick


On Sun, 30 Jun 2019, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado wrote:

> You can run (local or remote) X11 applications inside of a Wayland
> compositor.

The following contradicts your above assertion:

https://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html#heading_toc_j_8

Rod.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future of X.org?

Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado
On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 06:55:42PM +0000, Roderick wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, 30 Jun 2019, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado wrote:
>
> > You can run (local or remote) X11 applications inside of a Wayland
> > compositor.
>
> The following contradicts your above assertion:
>
> https://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html#heading_toc_j_8

Nope, you misunderstood the text.

"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".

So, you will need a nested X11 server. Like you need on Windows or
MacOS. That's all.

You will see a desktop (compositor) running on top of Wayland, a browser
(just an example) window using also Wayland and your X11 applications
running like native applications.


--
Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado http://juanfra.info

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future of X.org?

Roderick

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.

> "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.

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?

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.

And Xorg / xenocara is not bloat: it runs on meager X11 terminals.
The bloat will come with wayland.

And X11 imposes an standard. Programs done as X11 clients may run in
any OS display in other. Wayland will bring chaos.

Rodrigo

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future of X.org?

Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future of X.org?

Leonid Bobrov
In reply to this post by Roderick
I make a mistake by writting this mail, but:

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.
>

No, it's your attitude is destructive.

> > "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.
>
> 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?
>
> 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.
>
> And Xorg / xenocara is not bloat: it runs on meager X11 terminals.
> The bloat will come with wayland.
>
> And X11 imposes an standard. Programs done as X11 clients may run in
> any OS display in other. Wayland will bring chaos.
>
> Rodrigo
>

You are a liar, the Xenocara is a bloat. X11 is a bloat and its implementation
called X.org is a greater bloat. Mesa is a bloat, it's a shit fat C++ library.

X Window System is just a shit windowing system while Wayland is a simple,
fast and secure display server protocol.
(Well, almost simple, this XML dependance is overkill.)

You people protecting X make me doubt that OpenBSD aims security, I am
agree with Linus Torvalds who called us monkeys.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future of X.org?

chohag
In reply to this post by Roderick
Roderick writes:

>
>
> On Sun, 30 Jun 2019, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado wrote:
>
> > You can run (local or remote) X11 applications inside of a Wayland
> > compositor.
>
> The following contradicts your above assertion:
>
> https://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html#heading_toc_j_8

Wayland. The software product brought to you by the people with a FAQ containing this answer:

  To support remote rendering you need to define a rendering API, which is something I've been very careful to avoid doing.

followed by this question:

  Why wasn't D-Bus used instead of the Wayland IPC mechanism?

and then finally this answer:

  The alternative is to write a Wayland specific GL binding API, say, WaylandGL.

I don't think I'll be relying on software from such confused individuals any time soon.

Matthew

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future of X.org?

Roderick
In reply to this post by Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado

On Mon, 1 Jul 2019, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado wrote:

> Xorg is the most insecure software in base.

Why? Because it has bugs? Or because, in oppossite to wayland,
it can listen to outside connections if configured so (by default
it does not)?

> If you only care about the remote apps, with wayland you can still run
> the apps within wayland. "ssh -X" will work fine.

I never do ssh -X. Nonsense in a LAN.

If X11 is so bad for you, then sure also nfs. Should it also be deletet?

> it is not a big lost for obvious reasons.

It is not a big lost *for you*.

Rodrigo.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future of X.org?

lists-2
In reply to this post by Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado
Mon, 1 Jul 2019 00:46:33 +0200 Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado
<[hidden email]>

> 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.

You can't do without YOU understanding basics of X11, do something else..
Juan, I don't trust your lack of any qualification for even feature bait.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future of X.org?

lists-2
In reply to this post by Leonid Bobrov
Mon, 1 Jul 2019 02:22:02 +0300 Leonid Bobrov <[hidden email]>
> I make a mistake by writting this mail, but:
>
> X Window System is just a shit windowing system while Wayland is a simple,
> fast and secure display server protocol.
> (Well, almost simple, this XML dependance is overkill.)
>
> You people protecting X make me doubt that OpenBSD aims security, I am
> agree with Linus Torvalds who called us monkeys.
>

Yes, it's a mistake.  Normally, nothing interferes with addition of ports.
When and if this new protocol proves useful, consider switching just then.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future of X.org?

chohag
In reply to this post by lists-2
[hidden email] writes:
> You can't do without YOU understanding basics of X11, do something else..
> Juan, I don't trust your lack of any qualification for even feature bait.

Two dots? This thing should never have more than one dot.

How about:

> You can't do without YOUR understanding X11 basics; go do something else.

Slightly awkward but still gramatically correct.

Matthew

123