First Steps Towards Network Transparency For Wayland

munwin99 writes: For the longest time, when bringing up Wayland a recurring question was 'what about network transparency?!' Well, Samsung's Derek Foreman has today published the set of Wayland patches for providing Wayland network transparency by pushing the Wayland protocol over TCP/IP.

Seriously??

[brunes69]

I seriously doubt that network transparency is at the top of anyones mind. It is 2016. If you want headless remote desktop availability you have a plethora of cross-platform options at your fingertips.

Re:Seriously??

[Anonymous Coward]

What people want is ssh -X and yes it is a top priority to many.

Re:Seriously??

[FatdogHaiku]

ssh -X is seriously is the slowest shit. Barely usable on a 100 megabit LAN even with compression enabled.

Your basement stuffed full of old Pentium 3 boxes does not count.

That's my living room!

It just LOOKS like a basement.

Re:

[OneSmartFellow]

What utter bullshit.

I routinely use X forwarding on a 10 megabit LAN without any problems. More likely a poorly written application is to blame.

Re:Seriously??

[JesseMcDonald]

I routinely use X forwarding on a 10 megabit LAN without any problems. More likely a poorly written application is to blame.

The problem is that an X application which is written correctly for local display (for example, taking advantage of hardware acceleration) is "poorly written" for running with a non-local X server, and vice-versa. To handle both cases well you have to implement two different UIs, which shows that X's much-vaunted "network transparency" isn't actually transparent at all.

Re:

[Phreakiture]

I have always suspected that the slowness of X11 over a network was primarily latency, not bandwidth. I think it waits for acknowledgement after each step before moving in, rather than (ironically) windowing the traffic. Paradoxically, adding compression to the mix may actually make things worse, because the compression and decompression steps, even if they keep up with the bandwidth demands, will add to the length of time it takes to get a request fully received, acted on, and acknowledged.

It's just a su

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

There are so many reasons why VNC is actually a *superior* way to run graphical software remotely that it isnt even worth discussing.

You, sir, win at being a fool. VNC is a horrid abomination. It sends bitmaps of changed screen areas. What is possibly superior about that?

X sends drawing primitives (draw rectangle here, draw button there, etc). Assuming the remote end is able to render those primitives it can actually be a very efficient protocol. Now, most L-users want the shiny and bitmap-rendered gradients with OpenGL transparency, etc. That is difficult to send as a series of primitives. Remote OpenGL support kind of works if you can

vnc is to X as penthouse is to girlfriend

[raymorris]

X is a protocol for graphical interface elements, such as application windows. With remote X, the application's window IS on your local screen, using the remote cpu and fileystem. It's part of your local desktop, a real, local window.

VNC is a highly compressed PICTURE of a remote desktop.

Since X is the real thing, and VNC is a low quality PICTURE of what X is actually doing, it's just like you're saying that a porno mag is better than an actual girlfriend. Your comment is THAT ridiculous.

Besides the fact that you seemingly don't know the difference between an application and a desktop environment.

If you ever want to stop masturbating with VNC and try the real thing, use vnc -Y -C . Y is a better version of -X, and -C enables lossless compression, which is very useful on most networks.

Re:

[dargaud]

If you ever want to stop masturbating with VNC and try the real thing, use vnc -Y -C

I guess you mean "ssh -YC" ?

yeah, typo. ssh not vnc

[raymorris]

Yeah, that should be ssh -YC or ssh -Y -C, not vnc.

(By habit I normally seperate my flags since -AB can mean -A B, with B being an argument to A).

Re:

[JesseMcDonald]

(By habit I normally seperate my flags since -AB can mean -A B, with B being an argument to A).

With separate flags that becomes "-A -B", with -B being an argument to -A. How is that better?

not on Linux (glibc getopt)

[raymorris]

Most Linux programs use the getopt() function from the C library.
getopt() in glibc treats -A -B as two switches. -B can never be interpreted as an argument to -A. On the other hand, -AB DOES set B as the argument to -A, if -A can take an argument. -AB is two arguments IF -A can't take an argument. So on Linux, -AB can have two different meanings. -A -B has only one meaning, it's always two switches.
http://linux.die.net/man/3/get... [die.net]

example: perl -i

[raymorris]

An example might be helpful. These two commands mean completely different things:

perl -i -w
perl -iw

The first means both -i (inplace edit, do not create backup files) and -w (show warnings)

The second means inplace edit, with backup files named "w". (Do NOT show warnings. )

If you mean to pass two flags, -x -y will always do that. -xy sometimes will, but sometimes it has a completely different meaning.

Re:

[JesseMcDonald]

I believe you'll find that the standard behavior under Linux is the opposite of what you claim:

[~]$ ssh -o -Y [e-mail]
command-line: line 0: Bad configuration option: -y

The `getopts` command in Bash works the same way:

[~]$ set -- -A -B
[~]$ getopts "A:B" opt; echo $opt; echo $OPTARG;
A
-B

As does `ls`:

[tmp]$ touch -- -t plain
[tmp]$ ls
-t plain
[tmp]$ ls -t
-t plain
[tmp]$ ls -I-t
plain
[tmp]$ ls -I -t
plain

(Tested in Debian Linux. The -I (--ignore) option to `ls` specifies a glob pattern to skip in the ou

that's what I just said, it depends on if arg opti

[raymorris]

Avoiding inconsistent behavior due to optional arguments is the whole point. Reread what I just said:

-AB DOES set B as the argument to -A, if -A can take an argument. -AB is two arguments IF -A can't take an argument. So on Linux, -AB can have two different meanings.

It's easy to forget that -A CAN optionally take an argument, if you're accustomed to using it without. You wouldn't forget that -o always has a required argument, if you use it at all. That is, you'd never use "ls -I ht" expecting it to behav

Re:

[JesseMcDonald]

You're moving the goalposts. What you said was:

So on Linux, -AB can have two different meanings. -A -B has only one meaning, it's always two switches.

"-A -B" is two switches only if "-A" does not have a required argument, otherwise it's one switch. It is not true that "-A -B" is always two switches.

If you're not sure whether a switch takes an optional argument, then the "-AB" and "-A -B" forms have the minor advantage of being unambiguous given that the switch either can take an argument or can be used without one, respectively. However, a better solution would be to consult the --help text or manual page an

Unless of course you have work to do ;)

[raymorris]

> However, a better solution would be to consult the --help text or manual page and remove the uncertainty.

While carefully reading the man page again for each command you type and carefully comparing what you're typing for each option to it's manual page specification -would- be effective, I'm not sure how many people want to spend the time doing that. Tapping the space bar by habit is a MUCH quicker way to avoid the common error case.

Much like consistently putting switches before arguments:
command file

Re:

[Bengie]

In theory, X is the real thing, in practice it is not. Many of the core Wayland devs were/are also the core X devs and have been for decades(many have been working on X almost since the beginning). X has become a ball of hacks over the years and is no longer what people claim it to be. There are many things that X cannot do without breaking other things, and these new things must be supported in order to stay relevant. Wayland is an attempt to modernize with the X team leading the charge in an attempt to ma

Re:

[Zontar The Mindless]

And yet you can't be bothered to name at least one of them.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Lunix Nutcase]

Yes, a tiny minority of people. In fact, many Linux applications can't even be launched that way and next-to-no-one cares.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

You do not use a full session, but often need to launch small applications without disturbing the normal use of the remote machine. For example it could be the software manager of the distro, or a specialized software only available on a particular machine (for example because it has a hardlock key, or it does not run on the operating system you are using on you main workstation).

Re:Seriously??

[Arkh89]

I do, why am I wrong?
Typical usage : I log onto distant machine, start working in command line (vim, python, matlab -nodesktop), then at some point I will need to display a couple of graphs or images. That's a relatively small graphical payload for which I *do not* want to use VNC. With ssh -X I get the windows to be displayed locally just as if I was doing the work on my light-weight terminal.

Re:

[Sax Russell 5449D29A]

It's mostly in reference to "top priority" and "majority". There are some niche use cases of course, but in general it's only useful for some random ad hoc stuff.

Re: Seriously??

[RightwingNutjob]

Yes, that "random ad hoc" stuff is called the capabilities of the computer environment. Kind of like reading CDs and USB keys. Most people most of the time don't do it, but I don't think you want to pull those bits out of the kernel. Other than a tiny minority of technical users, most people don't write C code either. Should we drop the C compiler from the standard Linux environment too? Why not go whole horse and just use Windows? No compiler, no remote terminal, no native nothing without third-party add-o

Re:

[Sax Russell 5449D29A]

SSH with X11 forwarding isn't what many people consider top priority. The majority most likely go either full headless or full desktop. Everything in-between is likely to be an ad hoc solution to a problem that needs to be either headless or have proper remote desktop capabilities.

But nobody was talking about dropping the capability, that's plain stupid. Even though I use floppy disks only approximately once every two years and I don't regard it as a top priority feature, it doesn't mean I want the suppor

Re: Seriously??

[RightwingNutjob]

There are a dozen use cases for not full headless and not full desktop. I'll name you one: a laboratory workstation that you both physically sit at and occasionally check up on from your desk or your home by sshing in and running a graphical thingie to monitor to test equipment it's plugged into.

Re:

[tlhIngan]

There are a dozen use cases for not full headless and not full desktop. I'll name you one: a laboratory workstation that you both physically sit at and occasionally check up on from your desk or your home by sshing in and running a graphical thingie to monitor to test equipment it's plugged into.

Which works fine if your equipment supports multiple sharing sessions. If not, starting the new monitor may disrupt the existing process, screwing you over. Which is why X and remote desktop are NOT mutually exclusi

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

SSH with X11 forwarding isn't what many people consider top priority. The majority most likely go either full headless or full desktop. Everything in-between is likely to be an ad hoc solution to a problem that needs to be either headless or have proper remote desktop capabilities.

I don't know about the "likely majority"; but maybe you should research it.

I do know there are quite a few people who do use X11 forwarding. I do know that sometimes that just works so much better:
* alt-tab between different applications on different machines
* viewing two machines next to each other for reference (both data, and different architectures)
* cut-and-paste

VNC doesn't let the remote desktop interact with the local desktop. It displays it, but it doesn't interact with it.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

SSH with X11 forwarding isn't what many people consider top priority. The majority most likely go either full headless or full desktop. Everything in-between is likely to be an ad hoc solution to a problem that needs to be either headless or have proper remote desktop capabilities.

The majority of people don't know what's possible and what they are missing because they are pretty much self taught and never ever learned from others because they believe they already know everything. You don't need full remote desktops ever except for feeling familiar with them. For remote work it is much more work efficient to blend the remote desktop into your local one, because you often enough have to work at both (or more) places at the same time and full sized desktops just take too much space. The

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

The majority most likely go either full headless or full desktop.

When corporate requires Outlook, that full desktop is Windows. Then one uses remote X for everything else.

No, VNC is not an alternative, as it can not forward windows, only the entire desktop. Which interferes with things like switching between Windows (including Outlook), and getting the outlook notifications in the (currently visible) systray.

Re:

[Bengie]

Wayland can do everything X does but X cannot do everything that Wayland can. Network transparency is a low priority feature compared to getting core features and cross-platform implementations working and stable. If you want it, add it yourself. Isn't that the opensource motto?

Re:

[silanea]

Why not go whole horse and just use Windows? [...N]o remote terminal [...]

For extra laughs, Microsoft is actually working on that. Even Redmond has finally understood why some features are essential to an ecosystem even when only a handful of users need them.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

We do it ALL THE TIME where I work. We'll ssh from our Windows machines into the lab, do what we need, and if we need to open qtcreator or gedit or whatever, we'll run it and X-Win32 will serve it locally. VNC would mean importing a sluggish whole desktop which isn't required and given it's all bitmapped screen grabs will never be as fast as a locally rendered GUI, which is what X servers are designed to do.

FFS, so many people in this thread are totally ignorant about how X can be used and is used by people

Re:

[Spacelord]

So if I want to install Oracle on a server, I'm supposed to fly over to a different country where the datacenter is located and sit at the console to do it?

Re:

[Sax Russell 5449D29A]

KVM switch is cheaper than flying. Any respectable datacenter has them.

Re:

[Sax Russell 5449D29A]

I think you accidentally ticked that "Post Anonymously" box.

Re:

[ssam]

"ssh -X" works fine on wayland. Install Fedora 23, start a wayland session and try it. (Ok, it starts up an xwayland server underneath, but from a user point of view it works indistinguishably)

Re:

[vadim_t]

But that's not Wayland, it's X11, and only works for X11 applications. It'll stop working as soon as Linux applications transition to Wayland and the toolkits drop the X11 code.

Re:

[ssam]

>toolkits drop the X11 code I think that's a pretty long way off.

Re:

[4im]

What people want is ssh -X and yes it is a top priority to many.

That, plus the ability to reconnect to the same session (à la screen),
in case your connection goes lost for some reason, or if you want to
move to a different terminal (think remote/home work first via your mobile
device, then move on to your workstation as you get home after being
called when on call duty).

Similar as to what Sun did ages ago, with their Sun Rays [wikipedia.org],
of course updated and more flexible.

Re:

[JesseMcDonald]

What people want is ssh -X and yes it is a top priority to many.

That, plus the ability to reconnect to the same session (Ã la screen), ...

In other words, what people really want is the functionality provided by xpra. The thing is, xpra would actually be easier to implement as a Wayland compositor than the current hack based on Xdummy or Xvfb.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet, every time the subject of Wayland comes up, you can expect that at least 25% of the posts here will be concerning network transparency or their responses.

Re:

[dos1]

That's why it wasn't considered when the protocol has been designed (and rightfully so), but it's great to see it as a later addition.

I have never used network transparency in X for any significant purpose, but it was great for quick hacks, especially when I had a smartphone running X.

It's 2016 and I can't even easily run Wayland yet!

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy fuck, how about they actually make it simple to run Wayland?!

I mean they've been working on Wayland for years now, yet it's still a real pain in the ass to get working on a modern Linux distro.

As shitty as X.org is, at least it's fairly easy to install and get working these days. It usually just happens as part of the Linux distro installation.

But getting Wayland running? Holy fucking moley! Be prepared for a fight!

The best I've managed so far was getting some Wayland-in-X thing running, and the results were less than spectacular.

I don't give a fuck about its support for network transparency when I can't even get the fucker to run on my systems!

They should at least get it to the point where it can be used on a standalone workstation, and only then should they look into network transparency.

A windowing system that we can't actually use is, well, pretty fucking useless!

Re:It's 2016 and I can't even easily run Wayland y

[Anonymous Coward]

Previously, the developers always refused to consider network transparency, and heated discussions followed. If now it is accepted, it is newsworthy for those who care about the feature, even though nobody can actually run Wayland yet.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

This is ludicrous. Wayland is hardly "languishing", and there has been no push on anyone's part to make it the "de factor Linux GUI". It is under development, everyone recognizes it as the next way forward, toolkits and drivers are targeting and supporting it, and it will be adopted when it is ready for adoption.

Anyone using the interim period to scream about network transparency is a moron. Yes, that means you.

Re:

[serviscope_minor]

It's not surprising. The people writing Wayland are the current stewards of X, and have been responsible for a number of really user-hostile things in X development too.

For example there used to be a keystroke for killing grabs. They removed it claiming it was "unnecessary" because you only need it if there's a bug in an application. So you should fix the buggy application, rather than just killing the grab (or application) and continuing with your day.

Re:

[JesseMcDonald]

For example there used to be a keystroke for killing grabs. They removed it claiming it was "unnecessary" because you only need it if there's a bug in an application.

They removed it because it was a security problem, not because it was "unnecessary". You could use it to bypass lock screens, which are implemented in part through screen grabs.

The AllowDeactivateGrabs and AllowClosedownGrabs options are available in xorg.conf [x.org] if you want to restore the original insecure behavior.

Re:

[thegarbz]

Had they and their supporters not been so idiotic, Wayland would likely be the defacto Linux GUI today.

Errr no. Were Wayland actually ready for the prime time and not still a nightmare to get going it would likely be the default today. To be very clear many of us don't give a shit about network transparency but still can't get Wayland going for one reason or another.

Re:

[dingman]

Is Fedora 23 a "modern Linux distro"? If so, to use Wayland on a modern distro, click on the little gear under your name on the login screen and choose "Gnome on Wayland". It's so easy I've done it by accident. (Synergy still has no Wayland support, so I don't want it as my default, but GDM remembers what desktop you chose last time.) This is a "real pain in the ass"?

My current complaints are that Synergy doesn't work, which isn't really a Wayland failing at all; lack of an xrandr equivalent that I've found

Re:

[bakaorg]

Personally, I would never use any windowing system by choice that did *not* have network transparency. Non-local VMs and applications with specific hardware requirements or physical attachments are the biggest (as specific examples that I have used *today*). I use VNC heavily (including KVM-to-VNC for boot level interactions with systems) but that is no overall solution since it doesn't give you integrated desktops usually (copy-paste, breaking out each remote window into a local window, etc).

I'd certa

Re:Seriously??

[gtwrek]

I concur. VMs, embedded hardware, headless machines- I'm on them all day. And ssh -X is all that I need working for my environment. As long as that works, everything else just is seamless. I think we're not going to see a reduction in VM's. And the number/amount of embedded hardware's only growing.

Now, X certainly has ugly warts. I'm hopeful for what Wayland's offering. This network transparency patch for Wayland sounds like a great start.

--Mark

Re: Seriously??

[RightwingNutjob]

I won't. 1 the team has no credibility because of their many years long opposition to network transparency and 2 whatever product they do churn out won't be as known and as debugged/understood X is. X has a 30 year lead on them. Any one of those in isolation and they might have stood a chance like if they didn't have network transparency but were also mature tech, or if they were new but started with a goal to replicate all existing X functionality. Both new and contrary is a no go in a domain where things

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that the Wayland guys are also the core Xorg developers? They came up with Wayland because they realized X is not fixable.

Re: Seriously??

[RightwingNutjob]

And guess what: they did it wrong because they dropped a feature lots of people liked and use as part of their workflow.

Re:

[serviscope_minor]

Not only did they do it wrong, half of the complaints about X are out and out FUD. See my post here:

http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org]

Re:

[silentcoder]

He just realized to his shock that not *all* servers are webservers or DB servers and there are more stacks than LAMP.

Re:

[Trogre]

I haven't found a better way to persistently run remote graphical programs than with X11 via xpra.

What do you suggest instead? VNC? RDP?

Re:

[caseih]

RDP indeed is a very good protocol. It's very fast, much faster than X11 forwarding, and can forward files, printers, and sounds across the link. Typically it's faster than VNC too. At one time there was talk about making a wayland module that would use RDP as the underlying protocol to remote Wayland windows and applications across the network. This actually makes more sense to me than forwarding the wayland protocol itself. RDP can do per-app forwarding (like we're used to on Linux), or the full desk

Re:

[swb]

Seriously, if they ever want to make it the year of Linux on the desktop they would adopt RDP as the protocol (as in compatible with mstsc.exe). It'd be a massive potential userbase of people running windows who could be immediate users of free software. I could see virtual desktops as a mass-market business, not the niche corporate Citrix/TS/VDI thing it is now.

I always wonder why I don't make my own dekstop a VM and quit customizing or even caring if the actual machines I connect from do anything other

Re:Seriously??

[caseih]

Are you serious? It's 2016 and the rage is cloud computing with distributed virtual machines and containers all running programs. You better believe remoting and network transparency is in demand, and actually essential. Apps could be local in a docker container or on the cloud. All interfaced on a laptop or tablet together seamlessly. Really it's the old 1990s Sun vision actually materializing.

Re:

[whoever57]

I seriously doubt that network transparency is at the top of anyones mind. It is 2016. If you want headless remote desktop availability you have a plethora of cross-platform options at your fingertips.

You have never administered a really stripped-down server, have you?

If you think that you have, then you don't know the meaning of "really stripped-down".

Re:

[Fwipp]

What "really stripped-down server" were you working on that you needed to launch graphical applications to administer it?

A "really stripped-down server" is, to me, a server without vi or nano.

Re:

[OneSmartFellow]

A really stripped down server only runs 1 tty, and forces the use of ed. Anything else is just fluff !

Re:

[silentcoder]

Who needs ed when you have cat ?

Re:

[tmh - The Mad Hacker]

Aside from all the jokes about not using vi, etc. I seriously marvel at the idea of a "really stripped-down server" including an X system. Though I fairly regularly use ssh -X on other workstations, I haven't included X at all on a single server (LTSP servers aside) in the last 15 years. I'm curious what kinds of tools server admins are requiring an X environment on the server for.

Re:

[whoever57]

Aside from all the jokes about not using vi, etc. I seriously marvel at the idea of a "really stripped-down server" including an X system.

Actually, after writing that, I realized that, yes, really a stripped-down server does not include X. I have some servers configured this way.

The point that I was trying to make is that a server should not need a desktop window manager. Earlier, in the arguments over Wayland, the response was "just use VNC". But for VNC, you need a window manager.

I have found tha

Re:

[tmh - The Mad Hacker]

That's a good point -- while rare for me personally, I have on occasion included minimal X libraries for particular apps before while not hosting a full-time console environment. I've run into some apps that offer GUI admin from a remote machine -- but only if you install a "big boy" web server w/ extra modules that starts to make the X installation look small and simple.

Re:

[bluefoxlucid]

Citrix, VMWare View, etc.

Re:

[ChunderDownunder]

It sounds like a line out of a Billy Joel song.

Re:

[Tailhook]

Lets analyse how long this time is. The initial wayland release was on 09 February 2012...

The 'what about network transparency?!' concern was appearing long before the initial release. Here is the usual huge thread about it from 2008: http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1017147&cid=25619591 [slashdot.org]

About 7 months ago I began using Linux on a headless workstation via VNC as my primary interface for development work. On my gigabit LAN the performance is amazing; certainly at least as good as remote X, but without all the font and window manager glitches inherent to remote X, and I don't need

Re:

[godrik]

So if you are on the same network as the machine you are connecting to, VNC is a reasonable option. With higher latency and lower bandwidth, it can get really painful.
The advantage of X is that you could only have a single application running over the network which tends to be much less consuming in network resource. Also that application would just integrate in your desktop environment perfectly.

Haven't tried wayland yet.

Re:ssh -Y ssh -X

[ssam]

"ssh -X" already works fine on wayland. Install Fedora 23, start a wayland session and try it. (Ok, it starts up an xwayland server underneath, but from a user point of view it works indistinguishably)

Those who do not understand X

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who do not understand X are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.

-- Harry Spencer (sort of).

Re:

[obsess5]

Isn't that Henry?

Re: Those who do not understand X

[RightwingNutjob]

Yes. But they don't understand the needs of people who use X, and they don't understand that they don't understand. That's why talking to them about network transparency has been only marginally more productive than discussing the finer points of French Impressionism with an upturned tree stump.

Wake me up....

[markdavis]

Wake me up in several or more years when something is actually available, works, and is really backwards compatible. Meanwhile, those of us who depend on thin clients really do have a problem with throwing away X11.

WTF is Wayland

[Snotnose]

and why should I care? Jeez people, is it really that hard to add a line to the summary to explain these esoteric things?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[CanadianMacFan]

Actually the summary doesn't mention X11 at all. Even that would have helped. It just says that Wayland has been criticized for lacking network transparency and a set of patches were released for pushing the protocol over TCP/IP. I had no idea what Wayland was from the summary because I've been away from the Linux movement for a while (I used to be system administrator). Even just just including the word X11 in the summary would have made it much clearer.

Re:

[steveha]

Defenders have argued that network transparency is a minority application and that they don't like the way it's implemented in X11 anyway,

All I need to know is that all the people who know the most about X11 think Wayland is a good idea.

Here's a talk from 2013 where an experienced X11 developer explaining exactly what is wrong with X11 and why he thinks Wayland is a good idea. This link starts 40 minutes into the talk, where he specifically talks about running remotely over a network.

https://youtu.be/RIctz [youtu.be]

Re:

[serviscope_minor]

When X developers say that X is a pile of kludges and is a pain to maintain,

X is a protocol. Many of their complaints are about their implementation of the protocol that they wrote, not the underlying system. They're essentially blaming X for their own flaws in a number of cases.

If they wrote X as a big pile of kludges, they'll do exactly the same with Wayland.

The Wayland guys are saying that the way X is used these days is far removed from its origins, and it would be cleaner and better to start over.

The

Re:

[serviscope_minor]

Right, because they haven't learned anything whatsoever in 30+ years of developing and maintaining a massive codebase of extremely widely used software.

Apparently not: they're blaming X (the protocol) not Xorg, their implementation of it. Bear in mind under their stewardship it's been largely rewritten. Some of the mistakes are theirs and they're blaming others.

That does not sound like a bunch of people who have learned lessons and will do it better next time.

Compare that to the slow and carful translation

One Acronym

[TheDarkener]

LTSP

Re: Ignore the Wayland hate

[RightwingNutjob]

Spoken like someone fundamentally afraid of code. X is a big lump of code, but it's written without too much spaghetti and you can follow the call tree to understand how stuff gets for on call to server to device to screen. And if you take the time: a few days to get an impression, a few weeks to gain notional comprehension, and a few months to achieve fluency, you'll "understand". And if you were serious about tweaking your own implementation, you could do it. Unless you're a lazy ass.