Timeline for Why Wayland is using OpenGL ES instead of OpenGL?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 15, 2024 at 19:59 | answer | added | Mecki | timeline score: 0 | |
| Dec 11, 2019 at 19:28 | answer | added | j_kubik | timeline score: 19 | |
| Sep 4, 2019 at 21:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackUnix/status/1169354619480395777 | ||
| Apr 13, 2019 at 12:13 | answer | added | sourcejedi | timeline score: 0 | |
| Apr 9, 2019 at 16:56 | comment | added | Paradox | @sourcejedi Yes, sorry: I was not talking about the overhead of XWayland compared to X11, but compared to "native" Wayland. Regarding your previous message, like said, I will try that ASAP. But, as far a I can tell, this means it's not really supported (yet?) but it's handled by a retro-compatibility layer to avoid X11-dependant applications to be unusable. And now we're back on tracks on my original question. | |
| Apr 9, 2019 at 13:22 | comment | added | sourcejedi | "Using XWayland is just the same as [a modern composited X desktop], but more efficient because the compositing manager doesn't have to go back through the X server to display the content it rendered." | |
| Apr 9, 2019 at 12:52 | comment | added | Paradox | @sourcejedi "Why would you bother to test and expose yourself to anything with less market share than Ubuntu, if the compatibility mechanism works as well as you suggest?" Remember Ubuntu was pushing Mir, with Nvidia backing them up? But Mir vs. Wayland is another story. Even if your argument is not the point here, it seems that it is less unlikely that you think it is. BTW, I did not suggest anything, but it is true that there is an overhead to run X11 applications (through XWayland) on Wayland. | |
| Apr 9, 2019 at 12:50 | comment | added | Paradox | @sourcejedi "There is absolutely no way it can be using X11." From what you have shown, there is no hard evidence, because it's just "an abstraction" of what interface is really being used. I said game like I would have said anything else. "Being on Wayland" for a distro/DE does not mean much, this is what I am trying to explain. | |
| Apr 9, 2019 at 12:42 | history | edited | Paradox | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added details
|
| Apr 9, 2019 at 12:30 | history | edited | Paradox | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added details
|
| Apr 9, 2019 at 12:17 | comment | added | sourcejedi | You said you read the example code. See how it uses wayland handles, together with GL headers and library - not GLES. There is absolutely no way it can be using X11. If you want to look at an example of how a game is behaving, you should ask that as a separate question. I don't know all the factors that would dictate what a game would do, but the most obvious is that Ubuntu is still on Wayland as of 18.10. Why would you bother to test and expose yourself to anything with less market share than Ubuntu, if the compatibility mechanism works as well as you suggest? | |
| Apr 9, 2019 at 12:15 | history | edited | Paradox | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added details
|
| Apr 9, 2019 at 11:56 | comment | added | Paradox | BTW, the uncertainty on which underlaying OpenGL API being used was adressed by many projects along the years of Wayland development, such as Waffle, for example. | |
| Apr 9, 2019 at 11:50 | comment | added | Paradox | @sourcejedi If you got this far, it is easy: (very) basically, just to know if EGL uses Wayland for OpenGL (not ES) or XWayland (so GLX/X11). For example, if you run, let's say, a game using OpenGL4, it falls back to XWayland, Wayland X11 clients compatibiliy layer. Regarding the link, I need to find some time to compile and run the example, even if I am sure of it would not give me a final answer, just a snapshot of the current status on my system, at this point of time. | |
| Apr 8, 2019 at 20:58 | comment | added | sourcejedi | That is a buildable code example, and "it worked perfectly on my Debian Stable machine in X using the weston compositor from the repos". I am not sure what more you could want! | |
| Apr 8, 2019 at 17:47 | comment | added | Paradox | @source jedi Sorry, I already saw/read all of these. But they do not answer the question. Or I missed really something when reading. Again, I do not see where there is any proof there is no lack of support of "classic" OpenGL, which leads to use XWayland. But again, my bad if I am missing something. Since 2014, the documentation and information are pretty dry and scarse, apart from bug fixing announcements, some distributions/DE making use of Wayland by default and users being mad for some reasons. Not to mention the phase where people were (are?) taking sides regarding Mir/Wayland/X11. | |
| Apr 8, 2019 at 14:15 | comment | added | sourcejedi | So I searched "wayland opengl egl" - that did it. Anyone care to write it up as a proper answer? The result was reddit.com/r/opengl/comments/7whgo0/opengl_context_in_wayland/… | |
| Apr 8, 2019 at 13:42 | comment | added | sourcejedi |
I think this is relevant: stackoverflow.com/a/10187032/799204 and "OpenGL is enabled by default" at mesa3d.org/egl.html . I am guessing Mesa EGL supports EGL_OPENGL_API, because I don't know why it wouldn't.
|
|
| Apr 8, 2019 at 13:21 | comment | added | Paradox | @sourcejedi I was not clear I guess. It's not contradictory if you read "direct use" as "without using XWayland". | |
| Apr 8, 2019 at 13:11 | history | edited | Paradox | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added details
|
| Apr 8, 2019 at 13:09 | history | edited | sourcejedi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
typo fix
|
| Apr 8, 2019 at 12:34 | history | edited | Paradox | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added details
|
| Apr 8, 2019 at 12:19 | history | edited | Paradox | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added details
|
| Apr 8, 2019 at 7:25 | answer | added | Johan Myréen | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 7, 2019 at 23:36 | history | asked | Paradox | CC BY-SA 4.0 |