6 ms·
I don't really like Wayland and I think X is better in many ways. There are a few problem which is why I had some ideas about X version 12. One is to ensure the
by zzo38computer 7y ago
I don't really like Wayland and I think X is better in many ways. There are a few problem which is why I had some ideas about X version 12. One is to ensure the implementation and protocol are separate. Another is proxies to implement security features. Another is support for SCM_RIGHTS and SCM_CREDENTIALS (only for local connections; these are obviously not supported for remote connections, which are still possible, if implemented by the server and enabled by the user). And then, also 64-bit numbers in many places. But a lot of it is like the version 11 protool (without all of the extensions they have added), but with a few differences. (I don't really like much of the freedesktop stuff either; I work without a desktop environment, and programs should not assume the existence of one.) Maybe there is even a possibility to implement these different systems over each other when needed.
For example, with text rendering. Font path setting is not part of the core protocol (although there may be a XSET extension which can do this on some implementations), nor does the protocol specify font formats (PCF is recommended, but the protocol doesn't actually care so you can implement different formats if wanted). Characters are still sixteen bits, although to allow optional support for some more modern features, there are two flags you can specify when loading fonts: EnableLigatures and EnableAntialiasing. Servers that don't understand these flags can ignore them, and fonts that don't support them would also ignore them. EnableLigatures waives the requirement that a sequence of characters is the same as each of those characters put next to each other, and EnableAntialiasing waives the requirement that text is painted in the specified background and foreground colour only. (EnableLigatures is required to correctly render Unicode text with the X core text rendering system (if the server implements support for Unicode fonts, which is of course optional). Of course you are not required to use the core text rendering (previewer programs should not use it, for example), but if you do, and your program uses Unicode, then this will be needed. In effect, a surrogate pair is treated like a ligature at the protocol level (how it works in the actual implementation may differ, and is independent of the protocol).)
- braindeath 7y ago> But a lot of it is like the version 11 protool (without all of the extensions they have added), It’s hard to tease out, but it sounds like you’re advocating for the state of the art drawing model of 1980 in 2019. I don’t think this is going to fly except for a very niche audience.
- ColanR 7y agoI've seen this sort of comment frequently: "it's 2019, why are we still doing n?", as if somehow it should be assumed we have grown out of it. It's a completely unsubstantiative argument; its effect is to sweep under the rug any justification for the 'old way' of doing things.
- TylerE 7y agoNo, it isn't unsubstantiative at all. For one very big thing, hardware accelerated rendering didn't exist in 1980. Also, no one really cares about network support anymore, because it's simpler and better to just do a screen share.
- foobarbecue 7y agoI like how he made up the word "unsubstantiative" and you just rolled with it.
- maemilius 7y agoIf a word accurately conveys meaning to another person, does it matter that it's made up? If you hadn't mentioned it (and I hadn't looked it up as a result), I would have had no idea it wasn't a "real" word.
- foobarbecue 7y agoWell, every word was, at some point, made up. Maybe we should herald the birth of this new word with great rejoicing.
- juped 7y agoNo one made up any words, they just misspelled "unsubstantive" (understandably!).
- foobarbecue 7y ago
- zzo38computer 7y agoSome people mention how Wayland does not allow access to other windows from other clients, and is sometimes good and bad. In my X12 idea, this is independent of the protocol, and the protocol doesn't care. Restricted access may be implemented either by the X server itself or by some proxy, and either way the protocol doesn't care and the client doesn't care. What the restrictions are may also be implementation-dependent and is preferably configurable by the user. The client would send a SCM_CREDENTIALS message to the server; if the server doesn't understand it then it will just ignore it and allow (or deny) access anyways. (It isn't necessarily only other windows that you may restrict access to; you might also sandbox selections in a proxy too, if you want to.) (Note that an implementation which cannot be configured for unrestricted access technically is not compliant with the specification; although merely allowing it to be configured with restrictions does not violate the specification.)