let me explain it a little different.

you should see that wayland combines the power of both X11 and uses the DRM more.
this way Linux gaming natively will be even more powerfull.
drawings of windows/pixels will go smoother and faster.

thats what I ment with the user experience.

for systemd, its basically the session manager in systemd in combination with wayland that makes it more powerfull/user friendly.

I stand corrected.

Other than that, once again, systemd has nothing to do with Wayland (Rebecca Black OS, a testing distribution for Wayland, is based on Kubuntu and not using systemd at all), neither do Windows or OS X. Most of the Wayland developers are seasoned Xorg developers that develop Wayland to overcome the flaws and problems with X on modern computers. This has nothing to do with the "Apple and Windows user experience".

I'll probably be playing around with it and seeing if it's possible to make it work on Slack. However, for non-testing boxen, I'll be waiting until it's either included in Slackware or maintained on SlackBuilds.org.

I don't need another Microsoft Windows-Like Operating system either.

I use Linux to get as far away from Microsoft as possible. I guess I might end up using BSD to get as far away from Linux as possible eventually at this rate.

Do proper drivers even exist at this time for Wayland?

In what way is moving to Wayland moving towards a Windows like operating system? New things are not necessarily bad things.

The feeling around these parts is usually 'if it isn't broke, don't fix it". Well, many of the developers of X seem to think X is so broken it is beyond repair, leading them to create Wayland.

Support for wayland in 'stable' distros is still far away, but I think it'll turn out to be a good thing in the end if it creates a more sane, better performing display server.

4 members found this post helpful.

I believe this was a reaction to bartgymnast's post.

Well, yes and no.

I've certainly written my share of new things, some for reasons better than others. Without writing new things, progress is limited to small refinements on existing technology.

On one hand, sometimes you want progress to be limited to incremental refinements, so that debugging efforts can keep up with the rate and degree of change, and software remains stable enough for production use.

On the other hand, it's important to keep a healthy supply of new projects in the pipeline, so that at any given time, there are projects maturing to the point where they can be used in a production environment, bringing large improvements in capability.

It often takes years for projects to mature, and until then they are fodder for early adopters and developers. Without these users, most of a project's bugs will never come to light and be fixed, making early adopters a necessary part of the process of developing projects to maturity.

I think part of the problem we're seeing here is that both kinds of users (early and late adopters) want to use Slackware. Early adopters want to see more young projects in a release, and late adopters want only mature projects. Patrick has traditionally done a pretty good job at striking a balance between the two which upsets a few, but satisfies most.

Well, again, yes and no.

Another part of the problem is that X11 is only broken for some users. To some users, lag, tearing, and flicker are a big deal, and for architectural reasons it will never be possible to rid X11 of these flaws.

To these users, X11 is clearly broken, and Wayland is the fix. To other users, X11 is fine, and Wayland is kind of pointless. Both are right, in the contexts of their respective interests.

Once again, yes and no.

Xorg, and its precursor Xfree86, have been around for a long, long time -- 22 years! This is a very mature project. Touching code causes bugs, but since the implementation of (for instance) xterm is so seldom changed, and then in small ways, its releases seldom exhibit new bugs. When it does, the bug is quickly fixed, and until it is, there are a few previous releases to choose from which do not exhibit the new bug.

I don't doubt that Wayland will be stable in a few years, but it may take several years (perhaps a decade) to asymptotically approach Xorg's current level of stability.

Now, that having been said, there is a tipping point where enough developers flee from an old project and flock to the new equivalent that the old project can't get enough development hours to keep up with modern environments and get thoroughly debugged. This results in the invalidation of the old project. This is what happened with XFree86, and it is happening now with vast numbers of CPAN modules. There were once plenty of perl programmers to port and maintain everything in CPAN, but those glory days are past, and now those who are left (and care) are struggling while more and more code falls into disrepair.

I can easily see the same thing happening to Xorg, with developers spending all their time on "the new hotness" and Xorg falling by the wayside. If such a situation develops, we may have no choice but to switch to Wayland earlier than late adopters like, because Xorg simply will not work with newer hardware or modern kernels. Wayland will not be as stable as Xorg is today, but it will be more stable than Xorg at the time.

I hope not, but we'll see how it goes.

4 members found this post helpful.

+1

When and if.

Anyway, it's too early to even discuss Wayland for now. Let's see it in the wild first.

Great, then we will be able to talk about switching or potential benefits. Without a practical experience, it 's all only advertising and p.r. interes buildup.

But it doesn't sound that soon to me. Fedora is a minefield. Non-LTS Ubuntu too, more often than not. Having Wayland in Fedora or Mir in Ubuntu doesn't mean they're stable, bugfree and ready to use. To get to that status, they need wide range of testers. So, if you're not an early adopter prepared to cope with the bugs, you'll most likely want to wait several more years for it to reach the maturity.

This really scares me. A lot. I'm not seeing GNU/Linux as "a free replacement for Mac OS X or Windows", but in it's own light as "a very powerfull free and open source Unix clone". I don't want a free Mac OS X clone or Windows look-alike Unix.

I tend to agree with this, but don't have enough information to judge. I mean, Xorg guys are those working on Wayland. Why? There might be something else. Or not. That's why I prefer to see how it will turn out at the end.

Anyway, I intend to trust Pat's judgement on this. If it gets stable enough and Pat decides to switch, I'll go with it.

People, where did I ever write that it would be more a apple or windows clone?

I wrote about user experience.
If you look at both apple and microsoft desktop machines, user experience is about smoother graphics, faster reactions. easier extendable.

so stop quoting about look-alike or cloning.
See below wiki about User Experience or follow the link to find out more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_experience

User experience (UX) involves a person's emotions about using a particular product, system or service. User experience highlights the experiential, affective, meaningful and valuable aspects of human-computer interaction and product ownership. Additionally, it includes a person’s perceptions of the practical aspects such as utility, ease of use and efficiency of the system. User experience is subjective in nature because it is about individual perception and thought with respect to the system. User experience is dynamic as it is constantly modified over time due to changing circumstances and new innovations.

ISO 9241-210[1] defines user experience as "a person's perceptions and responses that result from the use or anticipated use of a product, system or service". According to the ISO definition user experience includes all the users' emotions, beliefs, preferences, perceptions, physical and psychological responses, behaviors and accomplishments that occur before, during and after use. The ISO also list three factors that influence user experience: system, user and the context of use.

1 members found this post helpful.

Since anything proprietary seems to be a no-go for you you will like to hear that both, Wayland and Mir, are fully supported by the open source video drivers.

If and when it is fully backward-compatible with all existing software that currently uses X11, as well as supporting optimised applications, AND it has had the wrinkles ironed out in general distribution for a year, AND it is easy to retrofit (and roll back), then and only then will I think about it.

Somebody's made Wayland/Weston available for the Raspberry Pi. I haven't tried it on mine, yet, since I mostly ssh into them, or use VNC.
http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/4053

Wayland will be years away we can all agree on, but the most important thing is Wayland could be contributing back to X.Org as well codewise to improve certain things.

Security will always be an issue. Wayland by far won't be able to address all the security problems and will just as likely create it's own new problems.

As far as drivers go, Nvidia and AMD most likely won't support Wayland until it becomes mature enough to write drivers for. Proprietary or Open Source, proper stable drivers will be a key factor to Wayland being successful even in it's Alpha, and BETA stages.

Wayland is in development for 5 years already, Wayland developers are very reasonable about the development process. Keep in mind that Wayland is a protocol, and after 5 years of development they released version 1.0 a few months ago. I wonder how much more maturity you need.
Wayland is not years ago, first distros will come with it in the timeframe of a year, having it in Fedora means that Red Hat will target it for RHEL8. When it comes in RHEL you can be sure that Nvidia and AMD will deliver drivers for it, especially since both, Mir and Wayland, use the same EGL driver model.
Since X and Wayland have a different architecture and Wayland does things in a different way I think that backporting code will not happen. Of course you can feel free to try it, it is all open source.

2 members found this post helpful.

It is Pat V.'s decision. If he wants to include it, it will probably be in /testing.

Wayland was started by some X.org developers 5 years ago (2008), because it was impossible to fix bugs in X.org without creating loads of new ones.

Januari 2012 - 17 months ago they released the 1st Alpha snapshot. - version 0.85
June 2012 - 12 months ago they released Beta 1 - version 0.94.90
July 2012 - 11 months ago they released Beta 2 - version 0.95.0
September 2012 - 9 months ago they released RC - version 0.99.0
22 Oktober 2012 - 8 months ago, Stable release - version 1.0

4 June 2013 - version 1.1.0

It took them 5 year to come to this stage.
and some code is backported in a way.
Wayland is contributing, using Xlibs

Some very important libraries are a dep for wayland

libxkbcommon
Mesa
Cairo-gl (optional)

so Mature enough in my eyes.

if it was not mature than KDE/Enlightment/GNOME wouldnt say that they are porting to wayland.

Enlightment even has a fully working version already E17 on wayland.


Wayland is a serious change. would we see it to replace X.org, imo not yet.
The change has started tho and it takes roughly 2 years more before it is used by most distro's.


Also:

taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayland...er_protocol%29

Toolkits

As of March 2013:

Clutter has complete Wayland support.[28]
EFL has complete Wayland support, except for selection.[29]
GTK+ support is complete, including client-side decorations and is scheduled to be part of the 3.10 release in September 2013.[30] There are still some things that need improving though.[clarification needed][31][32]
Qt 5 has complete Wayland support, including the client-side decorations.
Wayland support for SDL is under development.[33]

Compositors

Weston – the reference implementation of a Wayland Compositor.
KWin has incomplete Wayland support[34]
Mutter has incomplete Wayland support