>i don't think it has a huge impact on the discussion here. but this is such a key difference versus X, that i think is hugely under-told: Wayland compositors all rely on lots of kernel facilities to do the job, where-as X is basically it's own kernel, has origins where it effectively was the device driver for the gpu, talking to it over pci, and doing just about everything. when people contrast wayland versus X as wayland compositors needing to do so much, i can't help but chuckle, because it feels like the kernel does >50% of what X used to have to do itself; it's a much simpler world, using the kernel's built-in abstractions, rather than being multiple stacked layers of abstractions (kernels + X's own).
replyAre you an AI bot? Modern X11 server using DRM are more than 20 years old. You are talking about how X11 servers worked in the 90's
The Xorg codebase still includes some of those old drivers and is structured to allow them to exist.
replyJust to be clear the hardware abstraction layer used by wayland and any current Xserver is exactly the same.
replyYes exactly. DRM exists, but there's still what I called the X "kernel", all of it's heavyweight abstractions.
replyTo the previous a-hole, frak you: not an AI. That's rude as frak. Also, you manage to be incredibly wrong. Even an AI wouldn't overlook such an obvious error; maybe it'd be better to have it replace you. So rude dude! Behave!
I am sorry if I mistaken you for a bot but the model you are describing have not been implenented by any graphic driver in decades.
replyX's drivers still wrap the kernels drivers in its own abstraction layer.
replyIt's vastly deeper than what Wayland does.
That's what the anti-Wayland people want: for things to work exactly as they did in the 90s. It's not an accident.
reply