4 ms·

Wayland is just a set of protocol definitions. You want to compare Arcan to a Wayland implementation. Like gnome-shell. Or weston. Or Arcan. Adding Wayland su

by zlynx 8y ago

Wayland is just a set of protocol definitions. You want to compare Arcan to a Wayland implementation. Like gnome-shell. Or weston. Or Arcan. Adding Wayland support to Arcan has been a thing.

newnewpdro 8y ago
Just having a thorough writeup describing how Arcan and Wayland differ in their overlapping areas would be useful in comparing how their architectures differ. I understand Arcan is larger in scope than Wayland, but Arcan must have a protocol and architecture behind said protocol that can be meaningfully compared to Wayland's.
- crazyloglad 8y ago
  The closest you'll get is the the "Clients and Privileges" section, and I much prefer to spend time on "what is" and "what will it become" than comparisons. Part of the problem is that Xorg is much more well defined in that most can grok "what it is" so there is a point of reference to base an explanation from without 'too much' confusion, there's stuff to work on that isn't IRC logs or mailing list posts which is seriously 90% of Wayland right there. Wayland is not a "protocol" in the traditional RFC/Jon Postel sense. Heck, even the spec PDF itself referred to itself as a Display Server. There's single X extensions with far more coherent descriptions than all of the Wayland Ecosystem. It's full of overloaded terms and technical WTFs!?. If anything, its the worst parts of Micosoft COM resurrected. An asynchronous Object Oriented IDL. Run for the hills. Some say it'll fix security issues, it'll fix performance issues, it'll fix world peace -- with barely anyone answering or questioning "how", "why" or "why can't X?". When you counter-argue its feature anaemia it is "oh it's just a protocol, the compositor fixes that" and when you question the feature bulimia it is "oh that's compositor extensions, not the protocol". Neither position is substantiated by its technical underpinnings, the protocol parts itself, nor the documentation, nor any of the the 'project goals'.
  - kitotik 8y ago
    Upvoted for thoughtful, accurate points, but mostly for giving me the phrase ‘feature bulimia’.
    - crazyloglad 8y ago
      It's your weapon now. Use it wisely.

by zlynx 8y ago

Wayland is just a set of protocol definitions. You want to compare Arcan to a Wayland implementation. Like gnome-shell. Or weston. Or Arcan. Adding Wayland support to Arcan has been a thing.

newnewpdro 8y ago

Just having a thorough writeup describing how Arcan and Wayland differ in their overlapping areas would be useful in comparing how their architectures differ. I understand Arcan is larger in scope than Wayland, but Arcan must have a protocol and architecture behind said protocol that can be meaningfully compared to Wayland's.

crazyloglad 8y ago
The closest you'll get is the the "Clients and Privileges" section, and I much prefer to spend time on "what is" and "what will it become" than comparisons. Part of the problem is that Xorg is much more well defined in that most can grok "what it is" so there is a point of reference to base an explanation from without 'too much' confusion, there's stuff to work on that isn't IRC logs or mailing list posts which is seriously 90% of Wayland right there. Wayland is not a "protocol" in the traditional RFC/Jon Postel sense. Heck, even the spec PDF itself referred to itself as a Display Server. There's single X extensions with far more coherent descriptions than all of the Wayland Ecosystem. It's full of overloaded terms and technical WTFs!?. If anything, its the worst parts of Micosoft COM resurrected. An asynchronous Object Oriented IDL. Run for the hills. Some say it'll fix security issues, it'll fix performance issues, it'll fix world peace -- with barely anyone answering or questioning "how", "why" or "why can't X?". When you counter-argue its feature anaemia it is "oh it's just a protocol, the compositor fixes that" and when you question the feature bulimia it is "oh that's compositor extensions, not the protocol". Neither position is substantiated by its technical underpinnings, the protocol parts itself, nor the documentation, nor any of the the 'project goals'.
- kitotik 8y ago
  Upvoted for thoughtful, accurate points, but mostly for giving me the phrase ‘feature bulimia’.
  - crazyloglad 8y ago
    It's your weapon now. Use it wisely.