7 ms·

You're not being too hard on the article. The hatred for Wayland is especially pointless. The author claims that Wayland "has nothing to do with the vast indust

by pzone 10y ago

You're not being too hard on the article. The hatred for Wayland is especially pointless. The author claims that Wayland "has nothing to do with the vast industry out there" because servers don't run graphically, completely ignorant of the embedded Linux market (where the "monitor + keyboard + mouse" X paradigm is most broken) and other major driving forces behind Wayland. Yes modern software libraries are inconvenient because they change a lot and constantly break. But that's not a new thing, it's been a problem as long as software libraries have existed.

cyberpunk 10y ago
Off topic but I'm really not sure what wayland is supposed to give me that I don't already have? Do you have some insights here? Personally, my Linux laptop is finally rock solid graphically after a decade of pain and the idea of replacing a stack that took so long to mature is unappealing to me in the extreme.
- Latty 10y ago
  From what I gather (and I'm no expert) the value of Wayland is that it is a model that matches what we are actually doing with our systems now. X is a giant system that we abuse a tiny portion of to use in a way no one planned for it to get used - X was designed when the assumption was that you'd be a thin client on the end of a mainframe, which clearly doesn't map well to modern usage. X, for example, allows any window to look at the contents of other windows. Useful for you screenshot program, security flaw for most applications. Backwards compatibility has obvious benefits, but at the same time, there comes a point at which you are dragging around so much cruft no one is really using any more it's better to throw it away. The author seems to think X isn't beyond that line (or, as the article paints it - anything he uses is), but from what I've seen, Wayland seems like a smart idea. Also, there is a compatability layer which means that most things should just work (except, as hinted at above, things like screenshot applications, which is an intentional break as that should require more privilages).
  - cyberpunk 10y ago
    Well, I still don't get it... How I'm using my system now works perfectly, finally, and I'm sure I probably fit into the 'modern usage' bracket (hidpi, multiple monitors, USB-c projectors etc)... That security improvement would be good, surely we can add this to X though? Adding that bit of security isn't enough to sell me on replacing such an entrenched bit of our daily lives -- for me at least.. We are stable and it's pretty and fast enough. Progress is always good, but it has to bring something to the table other than a transparent replacement of what we already have with new code. How many million hours has X run this month? I sound so uncool to myself here, I really like shiny new tech but fucking with something so important for reasons that no one really seems to agree on seems like a bad move to me. Maybe someone else has some justification for is that we're missing and can enlighten us?
    - Latty 10y ago
      Sure, but there is cost to maintaining X. If Wayland is smaller and can achieve the same thing more effectively (more secure, faster, better features for contained applications, etc...), then that is preferable. Yes, there is a cost to you, as a user, in switching. The benefits of Wayland don't really filter to you as a user in a perceivable way, but if it means that the applications you use are developed more quickly and end up being more efficient and secure, that's a benefit. The reality is that Wayland will be something you use, eventually, because people will support it (because it's better for them to target than X), and so eventually you will need it for something you want to use. That's why I call it a trade off. Right now, would I develop an application only on Wayland? Probably not. In the future, that'll shift and eventually tip - at some point the cost of developing on X will simply be that much higher it won't be worth it. I understand users being risk-adverse and not wanting to change, but the argument of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" has historically always lost in the end. It's rare for a system to have no room for improvement, and X is definitely not such a system. As to, why not do it in X - because X does want to be backwards compatible and stable for it's users. Secuity that breaks fundamental capabilities applications expect can't maintain that. Ripping out the cruft breaks existing stuff. Wayland aims to replace or remove 99% of X, so why work from a basis you are going to use essentially none of?

by pzone 10y ago

cyberpunk 10y ago

Off topic but I'm really not sure what wayland is supposed to give me that I don't already have? Do you have some insights here? Personally, my Linux laptop is finally rock solid graphically after a decade of pain and the idea of replacing a stack that took so long to mature is unappealing to me in the extreme.

Latty 10y ago
From what I gather (and I'm no expert) the value of Wayland is that it is a model that matches what we are actually doing with our systems now. X is a giant system that we abuse a tiny portion of to use in a way no one planned for it to get used - X was designed when the assumption was that you'd be a thin client on the end of a mainframe, which clearly doesn't map well to modern usage. X, for example, allows any window to look at the contents of other windows. Useful for you screenshot program, security flaw for most applications. Backwards compatibility has obvious benefits, but at the same time, there comes a point at which you are dragging around so much cruft no one is really using any more it's better to throw it away. The author seems to think X isn't beyond that line (or, as the article paints it - anything he uses is), but from what I've seen, Wayland seems like a smart idea. Also, there is a compatability layer which means that most things should just work (except, as hinted at above, things like screenshot applications, which is an intentional break as that should require more privilages).
- cyberpunk 10y ago
  Well, I still don't get it... How I'm using my system now works perfectly, finally, and I'm sure I probably fit into the 'modern usage' bracket (hidpi, multiple monitors, USB-c projectors etc)... That security improvement would be good, surely we can add this to X though? Adding that bit of security isn't enough to sell me on replacing such an entrenched bit of our daily lives -- for me at least.. We are stable and it's pretty and fast enough. Progress is always good, but it has to bring something to the table other than a transparent replacement of what we already have with new code. How many million hours has X run this month? I sound so uncool to myself here, I really like shiny new tech but fucking with something so important for reasons that no one really seems to agree on seems like a bad move to me. Maybe someone else has some justification for is that we're missing and can enlighten us?
  - Latty 10y ago
    Sure, but there is cost to maintaining X. If Wayland is smaller and can achieve the same thing more effectively (more secure, faster, better features for contained applications, etc...), then that is preferable. Yes, there is a cost to you, as a user, in switching. The benefits of Wayland don't really filter to you as a user in a perceivable way, but if it means that the applications you use are developed more quickly and end up being more efficient and secure, that's a benefit. The reality is that Wayland will be something you use, eventually, because people will support it (because it's better for them to target than X), and so eventually you will need it for something you want to use. That's why I call it a trade off. Right now, would I develop an application only on Wayland? Probably not. In the future, that'll shift and eventually tip - at some point the cost of developing on X will simply be that much higher it won't be worth it. I understand users being risk-adverse and not wanting to change, but the argument of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" has historically always lost in the end. It's rare for a system to have no room for improvement, and X is definitely not such a system. As to, why not do it in X - because X does want to be backwards compatible and stable for it's users. Secuity that breaks fundamental capabilities applications expect can't maintain that. Ripping out the cruft breaks existing stuff. Wayland aims to replace or remove 99% of X, so why work from a basis you are going to use essentially none of?