Gentoo Archives: gentoo-desktop

From: Dominique Michel <dominique.michel@××××××.ch>
To: gentoo-desktop@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-desktop] questions and sundry gripes about X11 multihead (it's a rant)
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 21:39:12
Message-Id: 20131230225851.661cfe54@tux.fritz.box
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-desktop] questions and sundry gripes about X11 multihead (it's a rant) by Brent Busby
1 Le Mon, 30 Dec 2013 10:52:14 -0600 (CST),
2 Brent Busby <brent@×××××××××.org> a écrit :
3
4 > On Mon, 30 Dec 2013, Dominique Michel wrote:
5 >
6 > > Each software you are talking about here is a particular case. *kit
7 > > is a mandatory dependency of gnome and a few other desktops/window
8 > > managers. I just don't install them, so I don't have *kit into my
9 > > system. You can do that even on Debian.
10 >
11 > For now, you can still fight it, but I have a feeling it's going to
12 > be like DBus (which I don't hate, but it still makes a good example
13 > for this): It will become so integrated into the way Linux works
14 > that eventually, you just won't be able to live without it. Most
15 > things like that I don't fight because I know you can only do it
16 > for so long.
17
18 It is another issue on Debian. It's called systemd. It make the kernel
19 cgroups totally unusable with cpu.rt_runtime_us. systemd insist to take
20 control of it, put whatever it think is good to have into the rt
21 cgroup, and the machine just freeze without warning.
22
23 >
24 > > udev have much to do with the kernel. It is still possible to make
25 > > an udev free system and manage a static /dev, and I know at least 1
26 > > user that managed to do that on a desktop PC. Also, an udev free
27 > > system must be the way to go for many simple embedded systems, but
28 > > that's another subject.
29 >
30 > You can fight it, but is it worth it? My main annoyance with udev is
31 > that it makes copying the image of an installed Linux machine to
32 > another machine more complicated than it really needs to be, due to
33 > the way it retains and depends on information about a particular PC's
34 > hardware that get configured at install time. I've learned to work
35 > around it, but it's annoying. Still...you can't fight upstream.
36
37 That's right, but on the long run, the users will decide. It is a few
38 years ago, GNU/Linux was the fastest growing OS on the desktop market.
39 Today, that's not true any more, and I think mainly because users get
40 tired of break_my_good_working_system.tm idiotic stuffs. It begun with
41 the kde3 to kde4 move. Instead of fixing existing bugs, they replaced a
42 lot a advanced applications with pale copies of them, and a few years
43 later, many of these pale copies never get updated with the
44 functionalities of the older versions. As example kaffeine. This app
45 was the perfect TV application for an average desktop user coming from
46 windows. Nothing to setup, it just worked. The GUI was a little bit
47 buggy, but full with features. It remain almost nothing of these
48 features in the new versions.
49
50 Also sometime upstream are like the French in politics. It work in
51 practice, but they ask: What say the theory? A good example of that is
52 the animated png support in linux. A patch exist, but nobody care about
53 supporting it into its software, that just because it is not in the
54 norm, it is only an extension. It was a kde3 application that was able
55 to open such files, it was one of the most advanced pic viewer on Linux.
56 Now, this app is dead and if I want to open such files, I must run
57 e-uae, and load some AmigaOS from the eighties into it. Tell that to a
58 linux newbie coming from windows, this give that:
59 http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1383411
60
61 >
62 > > Wayland is another issue. Due to the complexity of X and of all its
63 > > extensions, wayland's compatibility layer will be a never finished
64 > > job, which will break hundreds of good working software. Because of
65 > > that, I think wayland may be a good move for the mobile or game
66 > > market, but than for the desktop, X will remain in use for a long
67 > > time, at least by experienced users. Or many of these experienced
68 > > users will be looking for alternatives. Some already have done it,
69 > > or are in the process to do it.
70 >
71 > Just having big distros like Fedora and Ubuntu pushing it will
72 > fracture the Linux platform even more than it already is. It's true
73 > that there will still be X and users who use it, but everyone will
74 > have to deal with a world where the first question about your Linux
75 > install will be, "Do you run X or Wayland?" And from there, the fun
76 > begins...
77
78 What they are currently doing in Wayland is only half of the job. See
79 above.
80
81 >
82 > > Another concern with wayland is windows managers. Most of them will
83 > > just stop to work with wayland, and this is not an incomplete
84 > > compatibility layer that will make them to work. My main concern
85 > > here is fvwm, which is not only a wm, but also a tool-kit for the
86 > > Xlib which let its users do whatever they can think about with it.
87 > > I don't see anything like that coming with wayland. So for me,
88 > > wayland is just not a viable alternative, and I am not the only one
89 > > in that case.
90 >
91 > Totally agree. I love FVWM (and WindowMaker), and I think the
92 > ability to change to a whole different kind of desktop if you want is
93 > one of the greatest features of X. I have a feeling Wayland users
94 > are going to end up with a desktop that's theme-able (in the way you
95 > can theme a Windows desktop), but not completely replaceable with any
96 > of twenty wholly different desktop/window managers. Some people will
97 > say that's an improvement, since I've been hearing for years that
98 > Linux should have only one desktop, but the problem with those
99 > arguments is that everyone making it thinks their favorite window
100 > manager should be the one. Choice is good as long as it doesn't break
101 > things that used to work, so I think having a choice of lots of
102 > desktops is a great thing.
103 >
104 Sure. What I think about wayland is simple. They want to integrate the
105 wm into the server, which is a good idea, but that will break a lot of
106 things. At the same time, they don't want to further integrate these
107 with the tool-kit, mainly because folks from mainstream QT and GTK will
108 not accept that, and are arguing this is not effective on multi-core
109 processors. They can say what they want, but only 1 core at 8MHz was
110 necessary to provide a full premptible OS with real multitasking and a
111 wonderful GUI for that time on the Amiga. Which on a 4 cores
112 processors, let 3 cores free to make something else.
113
114 And more. With the hardware, we can see a new tendency slowly emerging
115 on the mobile market: multi-core processors with dedicated cores. 1 low
116 frequency and low power core for the standby, 1 dedicated core to deal
117 with the hardware, 1 generic core to deal with the GUI, and a DSP core
118 to deal with all kind of calculations inclusive multimedia. DSP cores
119 and their multiple data buses have obvious speed advantages over the
120 best optimised C code on general purpose cores, that for any kind of
121 calculation. And back from the eighties, the algorithms are well known
122 and have proved to be very efficient.
123
124 Because of that, I really hope, and think, this trend will reach the PC
125 market as well. And that day, some smart guys will make a Wayland v.2
126 with the tool-kit integrated into the wm integrated into the server.
127 And every thing will break again. -:)
128
129 Dominique