# What about implementing a desktop using OpenGL?



## jronald (Jul 7, 2013)

Will it _be_ faster _than_ OS X? If not, what is the bottleneck of performance?


----------



## zspider (Jul 7, 2013)

Well, Linux already has one for sure, it's called Wayland.


----------



## wblock@ (Jul 7, 2013)

Is that right?  As I understand it, Wayland is like an X11 rewrite.


----------



## jozze (Jul 7, 2013)

@@wblock: almost, but not quite.


----------



## NewGuy (Jul 7, 2013)

The KDE desktop can already use OpenGL for rendering. Performance is likely to depend more on the efficiency of the desktop environment and your hardware/drivers than the style of rendering.


----------



## wblock@ (Jul 7, 2013)

jozze said:
			
		

> @@wblock: almost, but not quite.



Sorry, not seeing the distinction.  Or should I have said "an xorg-server rewrite"?


----------



## jozze (Jul 7, 2013)

Well, it's almost, because only part of it is rewritten. Wayland is supposed to be just the protocol, whereas X.Org has a bunch of other things that go with it. Also, if I remember correctly, Wayland isn't meant to work as a server, so I don't think it offers that powerful functionality as X11 does. So you can use X.Org along with Wayland to have that functionality, without any conflicts (at least that's what the authors envisioned), or you can use Wayland as an X.Org X Server multiplexer (have several X Sessions opened at the same time). You can use "standalone" Wayland or Wayland + X.Org, or whatever. It's all in that FAQ link. Maybe this illustration will be helpful too. Even though many of use are probably not excited about Wayland, we will probably have to get used to it sooner or later.


----------



## wblock@ (Jul 8, 2013)

While Phoronix is not very rigorous about things, the comments on Wayland from the developers _are_ well worth reading: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=x_wayland_situation&num=1.

So it appears to me to be a rewrite of at least the X server, and full X compatibility could be built on top of it.


----------



## throAU (Jul 8, 2013)

jronald said:
			
		

> Will it _be_ faster _than_ OS X? If not, what is the bottleneck of performance?



In theory, writing an OpenGL desktop is possible.

However... OS X has taken about 10 years to get to where it is today via the gradual development and deployment of Quartz/Core Graphics, forcing developers to recompile their applications (for the single Apple supplied set of OS X frameworks), etc. - and OS X has millions of users to report bugs.

OS X was also designed from the outset with a fairly abstracted desktop rendering pipeline, using display PDF since version 10.0.  I.e., applications have gone through various layers to interact with the screen since very early on, and Apple has been able to replace the underlying technology without breaking compatibility with the upper layers for the most part.

I guess what I'm saying is this - getting the rendering pipeline operational is one thing.  Doing it in a manner that will result in all applications using it is another thing entirely.

I'd like to see it happen, but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## jozze (Jul 8, 2013)

@wblock, this was the article I was reading a few days ago, but I couldn't find it now, thanks!


----------



## overmind (Jul 8, 2013)

I've asked the same question in 2010: https://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=12129.


----------

