Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

How XMir and Mir fit together

Filed under
Software
Ubuntu

For Ubuntu 13.10, Canonical are proposing to use Mir by default. Of course, this requires a certain amount of replumbing. X would normally be responsible for doing things like setting up the screen and pushing the pixels out to the hardware, but this is now handled by Mir instead. Where a native X server would allocate a framebuffer in video memory and render into it, XMir asks Mir for a window corresponding to the size of the screen and renders into that and then simply asks Mir to display it. This step is actually more interesting than it sounds.

Unless you're willing to throw lots of CPU at them, unaccelerated graphics are slow. Even if you are, you're going to end up consuming more power for the same performance, so XMir would be impractical if it didn't provide access to accelerated hardware graphics functions. It makes use of the existing Xorg accelerated X drivers to do this, which is as simple as telling the drivers to render into the window that XMir requested from Mir rather than into the video framebuffer directly. In other words, when displaying through XMir, you're using exactly the same display driver stack as you would be if you were using Xorg. In theory you'd expect identical performance - in practice there's a 10-20% performance hit right now, but that's being actively worked on. Fullscreen 3D apps will also currently take a hit due to there being no support for skipping compositing, which is being fixed. XMir should certainly be capable of performing around as well as native X, but there's no reason for it to be any faster.

rest here




More in Tux Machines

Feral Interactive Ports Life Is Strange to Linux and Mac, Episode 1 Is Now Free

Feral Interactive has recently announced that they have managed to successfully port the popular, award-winning Life Is Strange game to GNU/Linux and Mac OS X operating systems. Read more

Introduction to Modularity

Modularity is an exciting, new initiative aimed at resolving the issue of diverging (and occasionally conflicting) lifecycles of different “components” within Fedora. A great example of a diverging and conflicting lifecycle is the Ruby on Rails (RoR) lifecycle, whereby Fedora stipulates that itself can only have one version of RoR at any point in time – but that doesn’t mean Fedora’s version of RoR won’t conflict with another version of RoR used in an application. Therefore, we want to avoid having “components”, like RoR, conflict with other existing components within Fedora. Read more

Our First Look at Linux Mint 18 Cinnamon

Now that I’ve had about a week to play around in Mint 18, I find a lot to like and have no major complaints. While Cinnamon probably isn’t destined to become my desktop of choice, I don’t dislike it and find it, hands down, the best of the GNOME based desktops I’ve tried so far. Anybody looking for a powerful, all purpose distro that’s designed to work smoothly and which can be mastered with ease would be hard pressed to find anything better. Read more

The subtle art of the Desktop

The history of the Gnome and KDE desktops go a long way back and their competition, for the lack of a better term, is almost as famous in some circles as the religious divide between Emacs and Vi. But is that competition stil relevant in 2016? Are there notable differences between Gnome and KDE that would position each other on a specific segment of users? Having both desktops running on my systems (workstation + laptop) but using really only one of them at all times, I wanted to find out by myself. My workstation and laptop both run ArchLinux, which means I tend to run the latest stable versions of pretty much any desktop software. I will thus be considering the latest stable versions from Gnome and KDE in this post. Historically, the two environments stem from different technical platforms: Gnome relies on the GTK framework while KDE, or more exactly the Plasma desktop environment, relies on Qt. For a long time, that is until well into the development of the Gnome 3.x platform, the major difference was not just technical, it was one of style and experience. KDE used to offer a desktop experience that was built along the lines of Windows, with a start center on the bottom left, a customizable side bar, and desktop widgets. Gnome had its two bars on the top and bottom of the screen, and was seemingly used as the basis for the first design of Mac OS X, with the top bar offering features that were later found in the Apple operating system. Read more