Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 21 Apr 2020 20:19:44 +0200
From:      "Dr. Nikolaus Klepp" <>
Subject:   Re: Wayland on FreeBSD
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References:  <> <> <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
Anno domini 17:43:01 Tue, 21 Apr 2020 +0000 (UTC)
 Paul Pathiakis via freebsd-questions scripsit:
>  :D=C2=A0 I love it when I see reactions to problems like this on FreeBSD=
=2E... :D
> Personally, I see a need for an alternative weighing though.=C2=A0 There =
are a HUGE amount of apps that make use of X.=C2=A0 Here's my thought:=C2=
=A0 Can Xorg learn from Wayland?=C2=A0 Could they, as a stop gap measure, i=
mplement a compositor similar to Wayland's method?=C2=A0 Enhance communicat=
ions via a default TLS methodology that can be imbedded in all X communicat=
> Don't get me wrong, I believe X is archaic and has been patched constantl=
y to 'enhance' functionality or close security issues and it should be repl=
> However, all functionality needs to stay intact and I would think that th=
ere could be some type of shim that allows existing programs to be compiled=
 as they always have for X and it just translates to Wayland's APIs.=C2=A0 =
If Wayland can offset the speed loss of the shim with its speed enhancement=
s, it should be invisible to the user.

If I recall correctly, the Xorg of OpenBSD has all security problems of ori=
ginal Xorg patched, and that for quite some time. Only nobody seams to be i=


> Am I making sense?=C2=A0 ( I believe this is what I'm seeing below )
> Paul
>     On Tuesday, April 21, 2020, 1:30:23 PM EDT, Robert Huff <roberthuff@r=> wrote: =20
> =20
> =20
> Polytropon writes:
> >=C2=A0 On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 19:18:51 -0600, @lbutlr wrote:
> >=C2=A0 > On 20 Apr 2020, at 02:24, Ihor Antonov <> w=
> >=C2=A0 > > But even in 10 years FreeBSD hackers will keep using rotting =
> >=C2=A0 >=20
> >=C2=A0 > Perhaps. A tiny percentage. The rest will continue as they are =
> >=C2=A0 > avoiding X11 at all costs because it is insecure bloat that
> >=C2=A0 > interferes with the desired operation of the machine.
> >=C2=A0=20
> >=C2=A0 Depends. If Wayland can offer all features that X11 offers at
> >=C2=A0 the moment, there will probably be no major problem in transition.
> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Speaking only for myself (though I think there are a _=
lot_ of
> folks who would agree): I have no particular loyalty to X.=C2=A0 If there=
> an alternative that's faster/more secure/easier to {install, maintain,
> upgrade}/[other unspecified benefits] ... what the <bleep> are we
> waiting for?=C2=A0 Can I be a lab rat?
> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 _If_.
> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 What I _think_ I'm hearing is "Wayland is a better sol=
ution that
> isn't ready yet.=C2=A0 Not fully integrated with FreeBSD; not even ready =
> the (current) Platonic ideal."
> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Am I wrong?
> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Also: if I understand the conversation, Wayland works =
OK when
> client and server are the same machine, but not over a network?
> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Opportunisticall=
> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=
=A0 Robert Huff
> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=
> _______________________________________________
> mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.o=
>  =20
> _______________________________________________
> mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.o=

Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing w=
ith the NSA, CIA ...

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>