Wayland 1.4 Released — Touch, Sub-Surface Protocol, Crop/Scale Support 128
An anonymous reader writes "Version 1.4 of the Wayland protocol and Weston reference compositor have been released. The Wayland/Weston 1.4 release delivers on many features and includes promoting the sub-surface protocol to official Wayland, improved touch screen support, a crop/scale protocol within Weston, security improvements, and other fixes."
Re:X forwarding-like feature? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. It's on the road map.
Re:OMG NO NETWORK TRANPARENCY!!!1 (Score:3, Informative)
And the best thing is that X is no longer network transparent, it's network capable in a way similar to vnc. With the current rendering methods (shm and dri2) you no longer send commands, you send image buffers.
Here, listen what a X developer has to say about that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIctzAQOe44#t=1111 [youtube.com]
Re:So... what is it? (Score:5, Informative)
Some guys who worked on Xorg/X11 for years are redesigning it to be better. They got some good ideas but it will be a while before it can actually replace Xorg/X11. Here is something: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]
Re:So... what is it? (Score:2, Informative)
How about:
"For 20 years we've been developing the code that allowed _actual_ applications to do what they do while being shackled by this protocol dreamed up by people who , for the obvious reason, didn't have a clue where things were going. Now we think we have a _pretty good_ idea of how this should work, unlike the aforementioned, and the hordes of muppets on the internet, so we're doing it. But no one's forcing you to use it. You're more than welcome to get coding on x.org or xfree instead of whining on slashdot about how it's better."
Re:X's way is the only feasible way. (Score:5, Informative)
The same way as X did? You mean produce a hell old protocol which was network transparent yet utterly incompatible with SHM requiring every modern distribution to have the compositor render the frame and then send it over the network as a bitmap? Wait what? I just described VNC.
Actually no I didn't. VNC uses compression, X doesn't. Hence remote X running on any system produced in the past 20 years actually holds the crown as the only system SLOWER than VNC over the network. It's only saving grace is that you can send individual apps and don't need to export the entire desktop. Then there's the underlying problem of a protocol which forces a shitload of talking to the local server before even being capable of sending a bitmap to the remote one.
As one X developer described it, it is not possible to do remote desktop any worse than X.