Begone Wayland, X12 Is My New Best Friend 

That's what happens when you run your application on one system and render it on another, over UDP, without keeping track of duplicate packets :P

You're fired! 😠 And take that weird penguin with you!🤪

Lol I thought their was a glitch in the matrix or I was having a stroke or something haha. Good video though!

Luckily no stroke, now you have some good news for the day

was this an editing mistake or YT rendering issue because it feels like this has happened more than one to many channels (at least for me)

Yeah I was confused 😅

yep repeating section from 2:50 at 3:46 it's an thing that I've seen happen on this channel a few times now, though nothing a tiny bit of skipping though the video doesn't help with

Hell yeah

He is doing it on purpose, to hypnotize us.

MUsT waaatch BR0DY… 1337

I wish you luck

if you can do that i dont even want to switch to wayland, the only problem for me is multiple monitörs with different refresh rates. other than that i dont care about security, app sandboxing and being a careful person is enough for me

​@@sesei2149 I dont know if you know this, but if you have a nvidia gpu then you can already use "different refresh rates" and have vsync to the correct refresh rate per monitor (if you set the __GL_SYNC_DISPLAY_DEVICE environment variable to the highest refresh rate monitor). The downside is that all applications will run at that highest refresh rate, but the monitors will then sync that automatically to the monitor refresh rate. You also need to enable full composition pipeline which adds latency, if you care about vsync.

Naming it X12 would set up expectations for feature parity with X11, which makes it harder to work on new ideas until they're there. The name Wayland provides a new start with fewer expectations other than being a good protocol.

@@LaughingOrangegood point

@@LaughingOrange XWayland is there for compatibility already.

They could have just went with Y1 and developed it to Y12 for another 30 years, and still have Z left for another 30 years down the road after that!🤪 "Wayland" just sounds too much like a retirement home!😅

@@Bob-of-Zoid At least i will retire with wayland.

They're the logical representation of the monitors in x11, isn't that what I said?

@@BrodieRobertson in modern x11 they are not logical representations of monitors. There is always only 1 screen, no matter how many monitors you have. The name "screen" is now a misnomer and it doesn't mean anything anymore.

@notuxnobux5774 your monitor is merged into one big screen but that is the logical representation of your monitors in X, it's no longer individual but it's still the logical representation. Screen is an important distinction because X historically hasn't just been used on what we now consider monitors

@@BrodieRobertson oh ok I see what you mean now. I got confused since you didn't say that they are the logical representation of the monitor**s**, you said that they are the logical representation of the monitor (singular). Thats why I explained that they used to be that but that changed. And the only reason they mentioned it is because it's an implementation detail that is no longer needed. It doesn't really affect software that uses x11.

@@notuxnobux either way it's a technical detail that nobody but us and x devs care about lol

Yep, I've got a video coming out at some point dispelling the network transparency myth

That's a freestyle thoughts. Wayland is far different from this concept talked on the video.

sorry thingisplay. i have to disagree with you here. Wayland's goals is to work well on modern technologies. x11 cant really achieve that as things are progressing as explained by asahi dev in his post from last time

@@socvirnylestela5878 That's why its not X11 anymore, but X12. If you look at a possible X12, it would address same issues as Wayland does. That's what a major release version is, when it majorly changes. Sometimes software gets rewritten from scratch and changes drastically in its scope and then just gets a new version number. Edit: I get what you guys are saying. Maybe my thoughts are a bit premature, as the core idea and concept is quite different. So a new name makes sense.

@@socvirnylestela5878 I have to disagree with that. X11 rendering is actually pretty similar to wayland, but there is one part that makes X11 even more modern than wayland. Wayland uses a render loop and that controls applications rendering, unlike X11. This is completely different from how modern graphics works, in this case vulkan. The modern way is to do explicit swaps and syncing. This also causes syncing timing issues with video players such as mpv. Well, at least wayland people are trying to fix it now, even if its 7 years late. Also the discussion was about X12, not X11.

@@notuxnobux, did anyone really design Wayland, or did someone just start coding?

I agree. Xwhatever is way too different from Wayland that Wayland might as well not be called X12.

Did you see the black cat on screen? (It wasn't there on the first run.)

thats the job of a window manager

rdp works pretty well for some of my clients, especially after I found out you can have a graphics card in the server do the heavy rendering.

Boneless wings -> have "wings" in the name Do said wings happen to be made of chicken? Then they are chicken wings

Good teacher repeat what they teach.

Running software in a Linux container (or even a completely separate system) does not stop it from having total access to the X server.

wayland over X12 sounds very interesting

What you're refering to as X12, is in fact, Wayland/X12, or as I've recently taken to calling it, Wayland plus X12.

I think some Unix X11 terminals and workstations that were already ancient in 1995 when I first used them, also had screenlockers.

There are maybe ten towns named Wayland in the US. The biggest of them is in Massachusetts.

@@seriouscat2231 Ahh i see. I wonder if it was named after one of them.

@@dakka76 Yes, Wayland, Mass. The reference compositor is Weston, which is not coincidentally a town that borders Wayland.

@@eDoc2020 Nice, I am now the wiser for it. Thanks. Still think X sounds cooler...but its all good...lol

It's called Wayland

​@@BrodieRobertson Not really. One is a client server model. The other is very different. Basically like apples and oranges; they're both fruit, but they're VERY different fruits.

@@cameronbosch1213 architectures can change between versions

@Brodie Robertson True. Though this one would seem very drastic for a single version number on something that hadn't changed since the first X.

@@BrodieRobertson yeah I made the switch from x11 to Wayland on plasma, I like it minus the overkill security

I use fractional scaling on KDE already. Even on the Steam Deck OS it works. Of course some problems exist, but that is true even for Windows.

Psst, meet waypipe ;)

As someone who actually used xdmcp heavily and have been frustrated by how broken it has been for decades I am more than happy to see waypipe starting to take off.

@@fuseteam Interesting project. I'll keep it in mind for the day when Wayland is forced down my throat 😀

Tells anyway who in reality never uses any network transparency at all.

FreeType renders on local - that's most of software.

So wayland is spiritually x12

There is a lot of obsession with brand names. Too often, form takes priority over content. But then, that sums up most of the history of GUI design, doesn’t it?

Pipewire video capture

@@BrodieRobertson this is not even related to wayland. There is few compositor-specific extensions, but neither core specification, nor official extensions support this. So screencapturing part of protocol is more of a zoo, than anything in X11.

@@uis246 much like network transparency it's outside of the spec but that it still exists and works just fine

You can do that, but this means that your gpu is display only now. Good luck using heavy software.

In what way is "the X12 server renders the frame and streams it to the client" counter to it being network transparent ? same thing happens just that instead of many draw commands to build up the frame it renders the frame when its more efficient and sends a single drawFrame command.

I found third-party systems like Sunshine/Moonlight to work much more smoothly than built-in Windows RDP.

Plan 9 has everything you mentioned here.

nvm, this video title's wasn't a joke (is just me being ignorant about what "11" was in "X11")

Invert window colors when an app refuses to use dark mode, zoom when an app doesn't support it or you don't want to disrupt your use of the app as in using a web browser which would change the layout of everything as you zoom in. Those are two things that some compositors can do which are incredibly useful.

@@anon_y_mousse Blanket inverting colors does not work if you ask me for a dark mode fallback. Zooming in though does sound incredibly useful. Yay, _one thing!_

@@angeldude101 Blanket inverting does work for a dark mode fallback. Try it.

Without a compositor anytime part of one window is uncovered it needs to immediately redraw itself. With non-optimized applications this means the entire window gets redrawn which can be computationally intensive. You've probably seen Windows XP screenshots where an error dialog is dragged over a window and leaves a trail, this is what happens when the background window can't redraw in a timely manner. With a compositor the WM knows exactly what each window looks like so moving and/or switching between windows is always instant. And related to that, compositing window managers can show miniature previews when using window-switching functions like Alt-Tab. It's much quicker to tab to a moving picture of Brodie than it is to tab to the text "Begone Wayland". On my crappy old netbook compositing had a noticeable performance hit. But when you only have a 1024x576 display the ability to switch windows instantly made it worth it.

@@eDoc2020 Under most circumstances, either none of a window is visible, or all of it is. Moments where a window I try to minimize as much as possible outside of pop-ups. Any of the window being covered is irritating, though it's better than a useless pop-up completely covering the screen. (I will add that this was what I did _before_ getting a tiling window manager. All i3 does for me is make this automatic.) Miniature previews could be nice. I only relatively recently got proper icons to indicate which window is which, so I can clearly live without it, though I wouldn't mind them being available. How much support from the window manager would the need?

it's usable. stop spreading outdated information 😅

@@socvirnylestela5878 Its a joke mate , same with the x and securty :) its useable under many situations but its still not at feature parity with x. One day .

These were added gradually over the years, you could argue that it would make sense to bundle them into a new version but X11 at this point is just a patchwork of addons

RDP and VNC forward whole sessions, they do not really integrate remote applications into an existing desktop. Classic X11 network transparency can allow you to integrate applications from other unix machines on the local network seamlessly, it might not even be noticeable to the user as long as you keep the view of the filesystem consistent (which you often did in a classic tightly-coupled nis/nfs/autofs environment). Actually, even window managers (if they are not using certain extensions) can and will run remotely. Also, there need not exist any kind of support infrastructure except the basic libraries needed on the machine where the application runs - this is not infrequently used by admins to run GUI based utilities on servers that are not set up with a full desktop. Eg, if you want to access a web page inside a network that your workstation has restricted access to - as long as you can ssh -Y into a server in that network and install an X11 browser, you can just run the browser on that remote server (doesn't work very well anymore with current browsers though, they rely on a lot of not very X-ish extensions).

@@splitprissm9339 Forwarding whole sessions is exactly what you normally need.

@@lawrencedoliveiro9104 For most purposes I much prefer the idea of only forwarding specific applications. You're right that persistent systems like Xpra largely make X network transparency redundant. However, it is still handy to be able to run programs remotely without extra intermediate software.

3.1 Windows Microsoft NT

lmao, Microsoft's official marketing would disagree with you :p

Why are you so NT Windows?

​@@BrodieRobertson Microsoft Windows NT 3.1 Pro Plus for Workgroups. 😂

Not in a video but I have done a little bit of research

I had been meaning to discuss arcan for a while just never got to it

Not really, activity on Wayland only ramped up much later than that. Also, Wayland is just a set of documented protocol. In a decade, it can be completely different but still called "Wayland."

@@speedytruck a slow start doesn't really change that it has been 14 years. And it has been "ramped up" for at least half of that, so it's not exactly a spring chicken. Microsoft went from their "forever" Windows 10 OS to Windows 11 in 6 years. Apple had their entire bad keyboard with touchbar phase to drastically new devices in that time frame. NextStep -> Darwin -> OS X Panther happened in WAY less time than that. As for "it's just a protocol", all I can say is: "make up your %^*#ing mind, Wayland". It's either a spec that we have many competing implementations of (no signs of happening) or it's a shipping windowing system that will replace X11. Trying to fall back on "but it's just a protocol!" is a coward move by the community. Either commit to the project or reject it.

@@thewiirocks Uh, what? What does that even have to do with what I said? And there is no "central authority" over GNU/Linux that "commits or rejects" Wayland. You can use it or not. It's that simple. > It's either a spec that we have many competing implementations of (no signs of happening) or it's a shipping windowing system that will replace X11. Maybe you're not familiar with this space (and I suggest stop talking on stuff you have no idea about if that's the case), but you just paraphrased what I said. But yes, Wayland *is* a spec (i.e. some defined protocols) of a windowing system that is replacing X because, well, the people that were working on X are working on Wayland now. There are implementations like Mutter, Kwin, and Sway that you can choose from, so not sure what you mean by "no signs of happening." > Trying to fall back on "but it's just a protocol!" is a coward move by the community. Either commit to the project or reject it. "falling back" to what? You're imagining some non-existent zero-sum game here. It's just free software dude. You can use it (or commit to it, in your terms) or not. I have been for that past year, but it's okay if you don't like it as well. That's just how it is. (And since the two biggest GNU/Linux distros, Ubuntu and Fedora, switched to Wayland by default, you're probably in the minority here).

@@speedytruck Ok, I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong. Having tried to follow Wayland on and off for the last decade, I was under the impression that there was a single, dominate implementation that everyone was using. Very similar to XOrg being the dominant implementation of X11. But your mention of Mutter and Kwin sent me down the rabbit hole. I'm not convinced I completely understand this, but it does seem that these are all competing display/compositing server implementations that compete against one another. One might say that Wayland is allowing popular Desktop Environments to be more vertically integrated in the same manner that Microsoft Windows Desktop is. I guess my confusion (and probably the confusion of many other onlookers) is that distros aren't advertising their support for specific display servers. They're saying "we're using Wayland". Which kind of makes sense, since that better conveys the change. But it also hides the competition between the servers behind the scenes and drives less sense of choice among the community. So that definitely feels like something I'd like to see fixed in communications. So I'll admit I was wrong here and concede the points. I still feel that the transition is happening really slowly with far too many basic needs being ignored. But the complexity of many different servers at least helps explain the challenge.

@@thewiirocks I know what you mean. But I don't think it's a problem. Brodie has made a video about this topic before: that is that Wayland is just a technical detail. Users (ideally) shouldn't know what it is or that their distros are now using it. It should be just one of the many components working behind the scenes that make up your desktop. As a user, I choose between the different desktops my distro offers, not the inner working components of them. I doubt most Ubuntu users, for example, know that they're using Wayland. (Also, sorry my previous comment was aggressive. I thought you were arguing for X for only the sake of it initially.)

Is the Wayland protocol that good?

@@seriouscat2231, why else would the Xorg developers be working on Wayland? It does seem to have some issues, but that's how we get better software.

Isn't that how Wayland is designed to work?

BeOS ties the GUI into the OS kernel, which is not something you expect in a modern platform.

Given that X11 existed before Linux and Wayland is specifically developed for Linux, I don't know why people are against it. Its the successor addressing core issues and designed for modern computing.

It's really not though. The whole point of the X protocol family is that there's an X server that is managing all input and output, feeds stuff to and receives stuff from X clients. It's deliberately centralized and easy to extend on the client side, while being very complex on the server side. Wayland threw the entire static server part out of the window (ha ha) and told people to re-implement the server part themselves - except they're calling those things "compositors" now. I think there could definitely be a place for a proper X12, but I suspect a good part of the protocol will end up looking very similar to Wayland, except with more predefined stuff (global clipboard, hotkeys management possibly through an authorized program for security, window content sharing, etc.) and, of course, network transparency.

@@qwesx There is a reason why those two parts was split apart from one another, and that reason does not apply to modern computing. X11 should have been replaced decades ago. Also no one is being forced to re-implement anything. That is where the concept of libraries comes in. I am sure that someone many years ago had similar arguments against replacing vacuum tubes.

Everyone is arguing with Wayland when the Xorg devs are literally the Wayland devs. If X11 was even maintainable, it's not. If it was, then why is Xorg devs never going to touch it again? The current code of X11 are too ancient and not for modern technologies and most of extensions are designed to be hacks and workarounds for it to work for the modern times.

@@danielberglv259 > There is a reason why those two parts was split apart from one another, and that reason does not apply to modern computing. Is that so? Then why is it STILL split apart in Wayland? > Also no one is being forced to re-implement anything. That is where the concept of libraries comes in. Yeah, this argument has been around since the very first reveal of Wayland 14 years ago. And there's still no such thing. There's compositors that are designed to be somewhat hackable for your own project, but those are FAR off from being generic libraries. And if you had watched more of this channel's video then you'd be very familiar with this being the case. Of course libraries for that purpose CAN exist. But they don't. And it doesn't seem like anyone is interested in making any.