If anyone wants to give an ELI5 or a link to a video that ELI5 I'd be incredibly thankful
I swear that all the stuff I find is like super in depth technical stuff that just loses me in no time flat
this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2024
476 points (96.5% liked)
linuxmemes
20880 readers
7 users here now
I use Arch btw
Sister communities:
- LemmyMemes: Memes
- LemmyShitpost: Anything and everything goes.
- RISA: Star Trek memes and shitposts
Community rules
- Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
- Be civil
- Post Linux-related content
- No recent reposts
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The part about negotiation is a bit off-track.
On one end, in the kernel, there's a big array of pixels that is a picture that gets drawn on your monitor (or monitors). On the other end are a bunch of programs that want to draw stuff, like pictures of your friends and web pages. In between is software that decides how the stuff the softwares want to draw get put into the pixel array. This is Wayland; it was written to replace Xorg, which is what did that job for decades prior to Wayland.
If you understand the concepts of Xorg and window managers, Wayland + a compositor = Xorg + a window manager. Wayland abdicated a lot of work to the compositors, making it simpler and easier to maintain (and compositors more complex and harder). But together, they all do basically the same job. If one of the compositors implemented a network protocol, then you could declare equivalency.
Display Server + Compositor + Window Manager = Wayland Compositor = Implementation of Wayland Protocol
Display Server = Xorg = X11 Implementation
Xorg + Separate Compositor + Separate Window Manger = the X11 equivalent of a Wayland Compositor