Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

The What Why and How of Wayland and Weston on Linux

Filed under
Software

Let's start from the beginning, because even though Wayland has been in development for over five years there is still a lot of misunderstanding of what it is. Wayland is a display server protocol that is intended to replace the X Window System. We've had X for 27 years, and computing has changed a wee bit in that time. Back in the olden days we had text terminals and every little pixel was precious. Now we have great honking graphics cards with more processing power than the servers and workstations of yesteryear, multiple displays, smartphones and tablets, embedded devices, and users who are not going to settle for colorful ANSI displays, but want complex 3D graphics. And why shouldn't Linux lead the way in graphics rendering? Are we not overdue for holodecks? And who would ever want to leave their holodeck? Though, as figure 1 shows, you can make some cool color images with ANSI.

The Evolution of X

X has been showing its age for the past 10-12 years, and has acquired a considerable cruft base in that time, to the point that it is more in the way than useful. You younguns might not remember, but back in the olden days of Linux we had to configure X manually, and it controlled displays, mice and keyboards. Yes, keyboards and mice. Why? Darned if I know. This is what I wrote in my awesome Linux Cookbook, published in 2004:

"XF86Config requires that you know configuration data about your mouse, keyboard, video adapter, and monitor. It takes you through setup line by line, asking questions until you're ready to explode. Most important are the name of your video card, the amount of video RAM, and the horizontal/vertical refresh rates for your monitor."

Rest here




More in Tux Machines

today's howtos

Oracle Desperate

Leftovers: OSS and Sharing

Security Leftovers

  • Friday's security updates
  • Judge Says The FBI Can Keep Its Hacking Tool Secret, But Not The Evidence Obtained With It
    Michaud hasn't had the case against him dismissed, but the government will now have to rely on evidence it didn't gain access to by using its illegal search. And there can't be much of that, considering the FBI had no idea who Michaud was or where he resided until after the malware-that-isn't-malware had stripped away Tor's protections and revealed his IP address. The FBI really can't blame anyone but itself for this outcome. Judge Bryan may have agreed that the FBI had good reason to keep its technique secret, but there was nothing preventing the FBI from voluntarily turning over details on its hacking tool to Michaud. But it chose not to, despite his lawyer's assurance it would maintain as much of the FBI's secrecy as possible while still defending his client. Judge Bryan found the FBI's ex parte arguments persuasive and declared the agency could keep the info out of Michaud's hands. But doing so meant the judicial playing field was no longer level, as he acknowledged in his written ruling. Fortunately, the court has decided it's not going to allow the government to have its secrecy cake and eat it, too. If it wants to deploy exploits with minimal judicial oversight, then it has to realize it can't successfully counter suppression requests with vows of silence.
  • Researcher Pockets $30,000 in Chrome Bounties
    Having cashed in earlier in May to the tune of $15,500, Mlynski pocketed another $30,000 courtesy of Google’s bug bounty program after four high-severity vulnerabilities were patched in the Chrome browser, each worth $7,500 to the white-hat hacker.