From linuxhooligan at gmail.com Wed Aug 6 21:25:51 2025 From: linuxhooligan at gmail.com (Robert Taylor) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2025 14:25:51 -0700 Subject: X11 vs Wayland: what does the timeline look like? In-Reply-To: <19cc7fd9-b3f4-4a45-84c5-fe6b371e18e1@metux.net> References: <20250707175746.54EA74C06DA@sharky5.deepsoft.com> <19cc7fd9-b3f4-4a45-84c5-fe6b371e18e1@metux.net> Message-ID: Enrico, thanks for the fork. Absolutely love to see it, hoping to help out with testing and dev soon. On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 12:58?AM Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote: > > On 08.07.25 03:37, Fungal-net wrote: > > Hi, > > > I haven't run anything that runs on X that will not run with Xwayland. > > I've got a lot of that. > > > There is an ? or ? experimental still system called wayback, basically uses > > xwayland to provide an X environment to run an X wm or dt on top of wlroots. > > "wayback" is nothing but a trivial compositor, for just one full screen > client. That alone doesn't have anything to do at all with X11. > (IIRC, Cage can do the same) > > One *could* use it for hosting a rootful Xwayland. So far so good. At > least you can run your own window manager here. But still limited in > many other places by Wayland's design. (eg. how about all the randr, > or xf86videmode stuff ?) > > And once you're only running just one fullscreen Wayland client, so the > composer hasn't anything to actually *compose*, why do you need the > extra Wayland layer (and extra roundtrips, and extra limitations) in > the first place ? > > Just to call it "Wayland" ? > Don't see the logic here. > > >> Also I use SSH X11 tunneling very extensively. I have a whole LAN full of > >> little Linux machines (mostly assorted 'Pis). Some of these are lower end > >> machines that I don't want to run full-fledged desktop environments on and use > >> RDP or VNC with, expecially just to run a simple X11 program on. > > > > Cage is another low resource way to run an application alone is wayland, no wm > > needed. > > How does Cage provide remote display of invididual windows ? > > > How would x11 vanish, if any of us have the code and a reliable place to store > > it there will always be fork around. Will C glibc/gcc change so much nobody will > > be able to update it so it will compile, even if, the kept binaries will last > > some centuries on the right antique machine. > > In contrast to Xorg, Xlibre is under active development - and it's > also shipped various distros (and there're 3rdparty repos for various > others), and more to come. > > > The reason I don't use it is 1 > > sudo -u or doas xxx-user X or Wayland app. refuses to start, no seat no xdg runtime > > and even when you cheat and get it able it would be isolated from the rest of the > > system as if it was a container. What I believe the problem is that it is an intentional > > decision not to allow user1 to run an app. as user2 > > This problem is several layers above - in the clients / DEs, who're > demanding certain weird desktop bus stuff for whatever funny reasons > (you'd also need to re-route dbus connections, too). Classic X11 clients > don't suffer from those problems. > > > --mtx > > -- > --- > Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult > Free software and Linux embedded engineering > info at metux.net -- +49-151-27565287 >