![]() |
XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
rewrite: In one of the never ending posts on how to get X* onto sailfish/jolla we learned it is actually lipstick that has to have XWayland support, not jut someone porting X app and hoping it will get ignored like other warehouse apps. Since all projects that are currently supporting wayland are already 1.4(1.5), can we get a firm declaration from Jolla when lipstick will support those? Selling a linux phone that cannot run 99.99% of linux apps because 1. too edgy for us (uses X, we are so edgy with old wayland), 2. software is too edgy, because anyone following wayland development is already at 1.4 (1.5) while jolla's 1.1 sucks balls and gives us maybe .1% of existing apps (that are still developed), when is this linux phone really gonna be linux phone??? I expect 'make' to work to call it a linux phone, if neo900 provides this awesome, if Jolla keeps using the term linux how about some linux compatibility?
|
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
Its been stated many times that Jolla will _not_ be doing XWayland support and if someone wants it (cripled user experience with crappy X11 UI) then community needs to do the needed integration themselves.
Lipstick and wayland are OSS projects (https://github.com/nemomobile/lipstick) feel free to make pull requests there. Personally I never want to see X11 apps in a phone, let those crappy UI apps remain in desktop only env. |
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
Thanks, it seems that community has to port LibreOffice (works on Raspberry Pi http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...3&postcount=33), FreOffice, Koffice, even Gnumeric, because really it is a matter of taste, and not being part of linux/open source and usability/availability
EDIT: I'm going to assume those "stated many times" is the reply that was finally posted to the TJC thread about XWayland, judging by the timestamp on emails you should've used future tense as the TMO reply was faster |
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
Well, I wouldn't be this outright negative - there are many specialized X applications that are unlikely to be made Wayland compatible in the near future (they are using xlib directly or a Wayland incompatible GUI toolkit, such as GTK2) or ever (dead usptream & complicated codebase), so it would be nice to be able to run them on Wayland somehow. The end result might not be as fast and elegant as running on Wayland natively, but something is better than nothing in this case. :)
Also Wayland does not yet have anything like X forwarding, which might be another usecase for having some support for X (I use X forwarding quite heavily on my desktop PCs for apps like Xchat, Thunderbird, Geany, etc.). |
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
Quote:
http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...&postcount=391 And there ware various other posts regarding xwayland beeing community only task. I only posted it again on together just to make it obvious if someone has not been reading TMO threads.. |
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
Better something old and stable than something new and crashing. :)
Why not just use an Android X server to render the UI for those desktop applications? The UI experience would already be so awful on a phone's screen that it can't get any worse with that solution, can it? ;) |
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
Sailfish interface is completely different from traditional desktop toolkits (GTK+ and Qt Widgets). So all apps for Sailfish should be written in Qt Quick to look native. Qt Quick apps support Wayland so there aren't special reasons to support XWayland.
I can't say that I like it, I would prefer have new Maemo with classic toolkits and all modern technologies - but now we have only Sailfish. |
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
Quote:
There's a very finite number of people working on these things, and the people working on them tend to prioritize things that give the biggest "bang for buck", which unfortunately for you, is not anything related to X. It's simply not something that the vast majority of customers want, as far as I've been able to tell. That doesn't mean that those people won't work with you and support, publicize, and encourage your work - it just means they won't do it for you. It's not like there's a conspiracy to hold the version back, either. It's a case of what was there previously working well enough to not require touching, up until a QtWayland upgrade (required to provide other ongoing work/fixes) bumped the minimum version, so I bumped it too. |
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
Javispedro working on XWayland for Sailfish OS :
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ByFK4iBCEAANE6Z.png "slightly backported to work on current jolla's wayland and without any acceleration nor input so far" :cool: |
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
Quote:
Either way... xwayland exists! https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ByIaAoHIIAAxmEY.png Please note that there's no acceleration at all and that input does not work. - For 2D acceleration we could at some point consider the use of Glamor. This would require some investigation as the current Xwayland uses GBM buffers, and I have no idea how libhybrys equivalent work. - 3D acceleration is "complicated", but probably not useful at all since I know of few OpenGLES+X11 programs (Maemo ones being the most glaring exceptions...). - As for input, I suspect that I need to look up the QtWayland "propietary" touch interfaces/protocols and patch xwayland accordingly. I have made an OBS project with Xwayland and all the usual required X11 libraries and dependencies. Just set up the repository and install package "xorg-x11-server-xwayland" from it. Also on the repository is the xlogo tool. Start Xwayland on a terminal like this: Code:
Xwayland -nolisten tcp :0 Feel free to depend on the OBS project if you need libX11-devel or other packages in order to port X11 software to Sailfish. Most of these libraries are just updated versions of the older X11 packages in Nemo/Mer. If I missed some important lib/tool just ping me. It was known that the "older" Xwayland was a pain to port and build because of its entrenched architecture -- it required specific parts for each Xorg "driver", Intel, nvidia, etc. At some point I pondered if it was worth resurrecting the older Xsdl server because it would be much simpler to port. However, there's no need to: Xwayland 1.16.x upwards is now finally "driver" independent and is as simple to build as Xsdl was! EDIT: Funnily, closing Xwayland the "Sailfwish way" crashes Wayland! EDIT: Updated image to real device screenshot. |
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
obviously early days yet, but would it be possible to run remote apps on desktop pc from the Jolla using X Forwarding?
Not sure running full X apps on the phone is going to be great fun, but if i can remote into apps from a laptop then that's pretty cool. |
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
This is great! This way we can get some applications on our phone, like Libreoffice. Lovely!
|
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
Quote:
On the other hand, if you want you want is to run X11 programs on the Jolla, that's what Xwayland does, but without touch input as mentioned (either an issue with the oldish version of wayland in the Jolla , or a qtwayland incompatibility -- will look during weekend). Xwayland also has two modes: - "normal", in which it behaves similar to Xephyr or Xnest: a single new Wayland window is created in which all X11 programs run. You can use your own window manager inside this Xwayland window (with titlebars, maximize/minimize buttons, etc). - "rootless", in which a new Wayland window is created for each X11 toplevel window. So you can basically switch between X11 window using the "sailfish" gestures. Unfortunately, we'd need to write a new X11 window manager for this, and take into account that we'd need to handle special windows such as menus on our own... |
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
Quote:
What I want is X11 programs to be executing on the Jolla in XWayland, but the GUI is accessed remotely on a PC using X Forwarding. Is that possible? I've never really played around with X Forwarding to really understand what it does, but i've done RDP remote apps in windows and if it works anything like that, it could be very useful |
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
Quote:
|
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
Quote:
|
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
Quote:
|
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
Quote:
Xwayland is still running by the time of lipstick's crash. |
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
Quote:
Code:
#2 QtWayland::ShellSurface::shell_surface_pong (this=0x1df2088, Code:
void ShellSurface::shell_surface_set_fullscreen(Resource *resource, uint32_t method ? |
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
Quote:
the crashing function is void ShellSurface::shell_surface_pong and the problem is that m_surface->waylandSurface() returns NULL. (ah, the problems with asynchronous IPC... :) ). Also: Code:
m_transientInactive = false, |
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
gz javispedro I knew it was doable , do know where do you want to support X11 ? what about hw accel in x now ? like egl and qtquick2 ;)
|
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
Quote:
|
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
we simply knew from the beginning, it is just a matter of time until someone in this highly competent community comes up with a working port.
Good work javispedro! for integration of this xwayland server to work with ssh, I guess there is some extra work needed too? I am rather split in my opinion about this, I love having x11 forwarding, bu t I can also see how ugly apps will be if they will be crosscompiled to run locally with x11. The possibility is always nice, but the question is still there, should we really let all those old apps pour in to the Jolla? Me thinks not. But I do want sdl1.2 support still, but that's another thing I suppose. |
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
for forwarding display you could use RDP wayland backend ...
But for my point of view , the only use I'll have is to run other OS in a chroot , ie: harmattan apps like maps/drive :) |
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
Quote:
But why? QtQuick2 requires Qt5, which should already work in Wayland? The only use case I can see here it's Maemo Gtk2/Qt4 programs, which I would like to see somewhat working. |
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
Quote:
For example, to get VPNC connectivity I run a token generator on my server. The generator works in a java midp emulator that runs the application from RSA. This application is only available as a legacy X application, so if I want to enable VPN in my jolla I need to connect to the token generator. |
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
Quote:
|
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
Quote:
To use stoken I'd need to get the token seed code in a format importable to stoken. Unfortunately that's not allowed to us, instead they create the seed bound to a device IMEI and distribute it in hashed mode usable only in an "official RSA client" I did put some effort in recoding the seed to a distributable format but was not very successiful at it. |
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
Quote:
|
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
Some of the good news:
- The lipstick crash has been fixed in some recent Jolla update. - When the Jolla keyboard TOH appears, it should work with Xwayland. The bad news: - Still no touch input. Possibly will make Xwayland use the 'propietary' lipstick protocols (aka the hackish solution). |
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
Quote:
|
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
Quote:
|
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
Quote:
|
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
Quote:
But I would suspect that "the right thing", then, would be to look at whether or not the custom touch protocol can be ripped out in favor of wl_touch, and XWayland made to understand wl_touch? |
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
Interesting, I hope this sees some major progress over the next 6mth or so.
Some of you guys are Gods amongst men, really... |
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
What about hacking on libinput ? and expect it to be part of sfos ?
|
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
Quote:
It's also at the wrong layer: the compositor is responsible for talking to the hardware (using evdev directly in the current case, using libinput as you're proposing) and propagating those events to clients. |
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
Quote:
(Note: no rotation yet, and for some reason the Xwayland window does not appear in the TOHKBD2 task switcher) |
Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
Seems Ubuntu Phone will be able to run X Apps with "Convergence" :
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2015/09/u...ng-mir-video-2 X Apps Running on Mir Display Server in a Unity 8 session |
All times are GMT. The time now is 08:06. |
vBulletin® Version 3.8.8