Proof-of-Concept Port of XBMC to SDL 2.0 and Wayland 81
hypnosec wrote in with news that XBMC has experimental Wayland support now. Even better, it's implemented by porting XBMC to SDL 2.0, something that will become important as SDL 1.2 development officially ended and SDL 2.0 should be out in the wild in the not-too-distant-future. The code is only a few days old and has a few serious limitations (input is broken and a bug in weston with threaded clients causes rendering hangs) , but it seems like a pretty good start. The port should also bring SDL 2.0 support to the X11 backend.
WHAT (Score:4, Insightful)
What is XBMC?
What is SDL?
What is Wayland?
FFS TFS needs some TLC.
Re:WHAT (Score:2, Insightful)
Because the average slashdotter is so new to the internet that they dont know what Google is for? Really?
Re:A good idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Thats fine if its a word processor. The problem is that all applications rely on the Window System. You can choose your own word processor, and it affects little else. But, a bunch of incompatable window systems would be a disaster, it would actually take away your choices because now some software runs on window System A, but not window system B, so you end up not being able to use one block of software or another block of software. The good thing about X is that it has been used on all distributions, meaning you could run all Linux software on any Linux distribution, or on any other Unix OS, such as FreeBSD.
It is important to have standards. The same thing applies to web pages. If every person who made a web page decided to make their own incompatable HTML and use their browser to look at it, it means if you used another browser you could not get to their web page.
Re:Wise use of time and effort? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wayland is not an interoperable standard.
You've got ubuntu wanting Mir.
You've got Fedora wanting Wayland.
And everyone else uses X, the ancient legacy (and therefore old bad crufty and slow---even though it can run happily on a Sun 3/60) display server that inexplicably has cool features that the others lack. But that's OK because we keep being told how no one uses those features anyway.
X is the interoperable standard, and frankly much better.
Re:A good idea (Score:4, Insightful)
How about waiting until it has proved it works and has advantages first. While a dumb framebuffer can theoretically perform better than something with a few layers of abstraction it hasn't done so yet, especially since some of those layers of abstraction in X are quite lean.
Re:Wise use of time and effort? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can run X on top of wayland. The misinformation and misunderstanding of what wayland is and what it's trying to accomplish is astounding given the information is a click away.
Touche.
You can run X on top of anything. That really means very little: you can run it on top of OSX and Windows too. You can't remote Windows or OSX apps using X11 and X11 apps on OSX and Windows are second class citizens: copy/paste is non functional beyond plain text and DnD does not work. Furthermore, you cannot manage the native windows with an X11 Window Manager.
Make no mistake: X11 on Windows and OSX is a poor user experience and it wil be the same on Wayland for the same reasons.
Remember, you can still run X on top of Wayland.
Stop saying that. It's an idiotic think to keep saying because whit true, it is entirely deceptive.