wayland-explorer VS rupy

Wayland is good until you hit the corner cases that they decided to abandon, without leaving any alternatives. We can always have extra protocol that can be optionally enabled, but good luck with standardizing that. It feels as if Wayland people are abusing their committee to keep Wayland as-is, instead of extending it. The protocol dashboard[1] doesn't look exactly good.

[1]: https://wayland.app/protocols/

Wayland is itself an IPC system (that uses UNIX domain sockets). I would make a custom Wayland protocol (if there isn't already an appropriate one available, look here: https://wayland.app/protocols/). You can define the protocol in XML and generate the boilerplate code in C using wayland-scanner. I assume smithay also has an equivalent of wayland-scanner.

https://wayland.app/protocols/ and https://wayland.freedesktop.org/docs/html/ are just API references.

Given I will be using most of the Wayland protocol to achieve anything (it's minimal) and Wayland is well specified then the 'start at the bottom and build up' design pattern fits. Wayland has a wire protocol based on a Unix socket, and usefully Java has supported Unix sockets since release 16, so I can write everything in Java to (de)serialise messages. This gets me going quickly, providing positive feedback that I'm on the right track..

The core is bare-bones, there are numerous standard protocols since, and many other are in standardization. Here is a site to review their state: https://wayland.app/protocols/

There is some lock-in in some places where tools adopt a protocol that is only implemented by wlroots compositors, or only implemented by KDE, etc, but I suspect this will improve over time as protocols stabilise ( and you can browse the available protocols here: https://wayland.app/protocols/ )

This link comes up in literally every Wayland thread and it is even more bullshit now than it was in 2013 when it was first posted (and it was bullshit then too). It is titled "the real story" but it is quite the opposite.

A few key points:

1) he laughs at how X has a bunch of extensions. https://wayland.app/protocols/ hypocrites much. In 2013, since it was completely unusable, it probably didn't have many. But turns out real world use leads to "useless" features being reimplemented.

2) he complains about how X.org has broad hardware compatibility. As if that's a bad thing. Meanwhile wayland, even now it still doesn't work reliably on half the graphics chips on the market.

3) It complains that certain X features are not fully network transparent. True, but most are and you can detect at runtime and gracefully degrade. Wayland "fixes" this by just dropping the whole feature.

4) it flat-out lies saying the X server does nothing yet it is so much hard to maintain code. The core X protocol provides backward compatibility and is rock solid (and really easy to impelment from scratch btw, someone did it in Javascript for a tutorial for crying out loud). Meanwhile the Wayland compositor keeps accumulating everything because of point 1. Need a screenshot? Add it it the compositor. Need a hotkey? Add it to the compositor. Need drag and drop? Add it to the compositor. Need a notification icon? Add it to the compositor. In X, all those are peer to peer. Graphics are actually a relatively small part of a graphical user interface, something Wayland is still slow to learn.

5) He complains that certain applications are written inefficiently with blocking calls which is inefficient over a network connection. Wayland's calls are ALL blocking and just has no network connection.

6) Complains that X may draw things unnecessarily. Indeed... but there's an extension to disable that. Easy fix. Wayland even uses the same drivers!

So that brings me to Wayland Protocols!. In X11 land, X11 defines a lot of behaviors for you. There is no such definition in Wayland-land by design - this is to give compositors a lot more freedom and flexibility in how they function. It also means that it required time for protocols to develop to cover all of the things that we would need in a desktop window compositor to bring it up to snuff for desktop usage. These protocols evolved through the past 4-5 years of everybody seeing it's shortcomings on a Desktop system compared to a mobile phone based UI. With the latest fractional scaling protocol we have more or less finally "closed the gap" between Wayland and Xorg on the desktop - it's just a matter of compositors implementing full support for all of the protocols people want.

I have been running a Raspberry 2 cluster for 10 years: http://host.rupy.se

A few weeks back the first SD card to fail got so corrupted it failed to reboot!

My key learning is use oversized cards, because then the bitcycle will wear slower!

I'm going from 32GB to 256/512/1024!

How this article does not mention SSE, comet or chunking escapes me.

What does their definition of event-driven really look like in practice.

Nobody has a clue.

Here is the ideal event driven system, it's async-to-async: https://github.com/tinspin/rupy/wiki/Fuse

The example is not working because I had to shut down the services for multiple reasons, but the high level of it is that you use 4 (potentially different) threads to do one request/response middle man transaction.

That way you have _zero_ io-wait or idling. I'm surprised nobody has copied this approach since I invented it 10 years ago. I understand why though you need your entire chain to be async and that means rewriting everything and that is a big risk when it's hard to debug.

But if you succeed you can build something that is 10x perf/watt than all other implementations. Which is going to be important when interest rates go higher and crash our entire industry.

The hardware is peaking.

So software is where you can make the difference: http://host.rupy.se

I think we're all confused over the definition. Also one might understand what all the proponents are talking about better if they think about this more as a process and not some technological solution:

https://github.com/tinspin/rupy/wiki/Process

All input I have is you want your code to run on many machines, in fact you want it to run the same on all machines you need to deliver and preferably more. Vertically and horizontally at the same time, so your services only call localhost but in many separate places.

This in turn mandates a distributed database. And later you discover it has to be capable of async-to-async = no blocking ever anywhere in the whole solution.

The way I do this is I hot-deploy my applications async. to all servers in the cluster, this is what a cluster node looks like in practice (the name next to Host: is the node): http://host.rupy.se if you click "api & metrics" you'll see the services.

With this not only do you get scalability, but also redundancy and development is maintained at live coding levels.

I have hosted my own web server both physically and codevise since 2014.

It's on a Raspberry 2 cluster:

http://host.rupy.se

Since 2016 i have my own database also coded from scratch:

http://root.rupy.se

We need to implement HTTP/1.1 with less bloat, a C non-blocking web server that can share memory between threads is probably the most interesting project for humans right now, is anyone working on that?

I have one in Java: https://github.com/tinspin/rupy

Here is the 2000 lines of code of the entire database: http://root.rupy.se/code?path=/Root.java

And here you can try it out: http://root.rupy.se

The smallest PaaS you have ever seen is one order of magnitude larger than mine: https://github.com/tinspin/rupy

And I bet you the same goes for performance, if not two!

The data is here: http://fuse.rupy.se/about.html

Under Performance. Per watt the fuse/rupy platform completely crushes all competition because of 2 reasons:

- Event driven protocol design, averages at about 4 messages/player/second (means you cannot do spraying or headshots f.ex. which is another feature in my game design opinion).

- Java's memory model with atomic concurrency which needs a VM and GC (C++ copied that memory model in C++11, but it failed completely because they lack both VM and GC, but that model is still to this day the one C++ uses), you can read more about this here: https://github.com/tinspin/rupy/wiki

You can argue those points are bad arguments, but if you look at performance per watt with some consideration for developer friendlyness, I'm pretty sure in 100 years we will still be coding minimalist JavaSE on the server and vanilla C (compiled with C++ compiler) on the client.