X12 ideas

I hope not. I want a Waland only and vulkan only sytem ASAP.
X11, OpenGL, and all other antiquated cruft needs to go. They will serve no purpose other than acting as a source of bugs and security vulnerabilities.

Nobody has said this doesn't matter. The question is whether this should be done at the display server level or application level.
An application with MVC design where the view is local (wayland) and the model runs on a server is a lot more elegant than how X11 handles things.
More work for the application developer, yes, but developers have to start writing programs the proper way.

originally:

>web.archive.org/web/20071123130628/https://www.x.org/wiki/Development/X12/

earliest modern version:

>web.archive.org/web/20121122141621/https://www.x.org/wiki/Development/X12/

diff:

> Length fields require constant conversion> All requests and replies in X11 have a length field. This is cleverly encoded as number of 32-bit words, since all packets are padded to 32-bit alignment. This annoyingly results in tonsof > 2 conversions everywhere to get into useful byte counts for reading & writing across the sockets.

There won't be an X12... at least not under that name.

What is stopping you?

no fuck off, it's bloat and i'll never need it since i'm not an enterprise nigger. it just makes all the API shittier
X is doodoo and everything that uses it has some retarded list of X extensions they depend on. meanwhile something like GTK doesn't even use X for any kind of rendering, it just uses muh fancy rendering libraries like cairo which probably uses opengl or some bullshit. the best X programs are the ones that actually use X, like stuff like xterm but they all have huge issues

Currently wayland has criticisms of being too hands off and tiny, which is perfect imo, SirCmpwm has been working with KDE to create libs for these "shortcomings", I want what wants.

youtube.com/watch?v=GWQh_DmDLKQ
X11 wasn't always modular, it used to have crazy shit in it like print servers, your X is due to the hard work of people like Daniel who tried to make it better but came accross structural problems.

I agree that X11 and Wayland will co-exist for a long time, X11 has served us well for decades, I welcome a fresh start.

X11 hasn't even been network transparent by default for years.

The great thing about X being such shit is that everything abstracted it away and now retargeting away from it is easy.

and yet the functionality is there, and you have to go setup le magic cookies and shit or else your server allows anyone to connect and fuck with your desktop by default

Which is silly to do, X11 is a terrible remote protocol, vnc is better.

hmm.png

feels good wayland is beyond usable at all.
seems like they couldn't make it to what systemd is trying to be already which is shipped on all popular distros.
also daily reminder that packages dependent to systemd are cia infested

as long as no glowers were allowed in the project which is unlikely. seriously I wish that sneaky fedora just fuck off already and forever

Nobody's even interested bub.

what do you even need a GUI for, more terminal emulators and firefox forks?
FACT: GUIs will continue to be terrible until the UX education market is severely regulated and enhanced by elitism and actual attention to long-term friendliness of use, rather than backwards compatibility.

Well faggot this shit is all going to happen and the only thing you are going to do is complain. I'm sitting comfy on my wayland / systemd system and it works great. No more screen tearing, fast boost, etc. Don't worry user soon you will be forced to deal with it.

OnLive-tier. And like everybody says whenever this stupid "argument" comes up, X can just run atop Wayland if its networking capabilities are needed.

pushing around bitmaps is what x does for modern GUI toolkits man

I seriously doubt it, also Wayland has massive screen tearing problems on nvidia.

Using nouveau drivers or the proprietary ones?
The proprietary ones only work through X11, meaning you are stuck using xwayland.
Also, you shouldn't be running any proprietary drivers. Especially not with a monolithic kernel.

oh look its a faggot

lol TUIs are just as shit as the pre-(((UX))) GUIs

jokes on you linux was already shit enough to move away from before it got the D

I've never had tearing issues in X, maybe because I'm not retarded?

Why?

retard

Are these the same devs who created all the problems with X11 in the first place?

lmfao

Pretty much. In the early 90's and prior, X was pretty simple and lean. I could even run a minimal version of it called TinyX on my 4 meg 486.
Then they added all kinds of complicated interfaces and extensions (and massive amounts of bugs), so it became the turd you have today.
ftp.halifax.rwth-aachen.de/ccc/30C3/mp4-lq/30c3-5499-en-X_Security_h264-iprod.mp4

Lol no they are the devs that stripped out all the bloated shit from X over 10 years before giving up and saying fuck it.

No they did not create the problems in X11, they inherited these problems from the original architects of X11. The X11 protocol was designed for a different time and was never intended to be used the way it was actually used in 2010 and 2018.

The security researcher in that video doesn't agree with you. He makes a clear distinction between the old design of X that was relatively clean and simple, and the new clusterfuck full of nasty bugs that those developers left us with.

wayland btfo tbh

You are fucking retarded, do you have any idea how much more work it is to use vulkan over opengl? No, because you are a larping wind bag. That's like saying you want a system purely written in asm, it's retarded. Vulkan is worth the effort for high performance shit to get the most out of your expensive graphics card, not to improve your tiling wm performance on your ancient shit box.

No. The problem with X is that it was designed at a completely different time to tackle totally different problems. It is not suited to be used now as it is used.
The developers tried to mitigate this by writing extensions, which would add new modern features (which is a thing that has been going on since the late nineties) but writing code on top of old, deprecated code is never a good idea. If anyone here used GNU in the mid-2000s they may remember that X would sometimes shit itself and stop working. A lot of DEs began to include a keyboard shortcut to restart X by default.
The team tried to remove and simplify the code, but X is simply not suited for modern needs.

peak /g/

Thanks for dropping that nugget of gold.

Why don't we talk about drivers, too?

There was already a project in the mid 90's (GGI) to modernize the Unix graphics. Those developers decided instead to pile all their nasty turds on top of X instead.

...

My mistake. This post, right here. This is peak /g/.

If this was /g/ we would be talking about the latest hot phones.

Attached: whoooOOOAAAAaahh.jpg (720x690, 65.14K)

Yes. Wait, you mean your post right?

A display server protocol.

no nigger wayland is a library and it's implemented by third-party compositors, there's no server about it

Wayland isn't a networking protocol so it cannot be X12.

In 1998, there was a big flame war on the linux kernel mailing list about getting KGI into the kernel. Linus Torvalds explained his concerns about GGI stating, "I think that X is good enough" and expressing concern regarding the overall direction of GGI.

The old X was lean enough to run fine on my 4-meg 33 MHz 486 in 1995. You can't do that with X now, because they turned it into a bloated piece of shit, just like web browsers and other stuff that used to work fine became bloated garbage full of bugs. That's what "modern" means. It's code word for "we're stupid niggers who like to fuck shit up". Hell they couldn't even stop at the software, they fucked up the CPUs too. Fucking niggers.

Different people faggot.

You can still get and install those old X versions if you love them so much. Why don't you?

X has always sucked.

Here is clear evidence that X is the Unix of window"systems." From the manual page for xset (a Unix programfor controlling X server options): OPTIONS ... bc The bc option controls bug compatibility mode in the server, if possible; a preceding dash(-) disables the mode, otherwise the mode is enabled. Various pre-R4 clients pass illegal values in some protocol requests, and pre-R4 servers did not correctly generate errors in these cases. Such clients, when run against an R4 server, will terminate abnormally or otherwise fail to operate correctly. Bug compatibility mode explicitly reintroduces certain bugs into the X server, so that many such clients can still be run. This mode should be used with care; new application development should be done with this mode disabled. The server must support the MIT- SUNDRY-NONSTANDARD protocol extension in order for this option to work."Such clients... terminate abnormally or otherwise fail tooperate correctly" is an understatement. In fact, inearlier versions of one X server, it was possible to crashthe X server (and all its clients) simply by setting thebell volume to zero -- using xset itself!

cgit.freedesktop.org/wiki/xorg/log/Development/X12.mdwn

It's a page that hasn't had anything except a typo fix since 2013. It's dead, Jim. Efforts have already shifted entirely to Wayland.

...

This.

The reason you misinterpreted my post this badly is because you have no idea what you're talking about. For some reason it's really popular on the internet to have about 30 different misconceptions about how screens work.