3 ms·

THe common API is whatever gains traction. Wayland has even less direction than Xorg development (especially in its early days), because it's a spec with lots o

by 2ion 7y ago

THe common API is whatever gains traction. Wayland has even less direction than Xorg development (especially in its early days), because it's a spec with lots of holes that others have to implement and fill in, respectively. Even Keith Packard doesn't think Wayland is on a good track anymore.

rvz 7y ago
The Linux ecosystem needs a standard and unified API or SDK for its desktop endeavour like macOS and Windows does. This is why this whole thread on having the user to find out if an app like OBS is running on KDE, GNOME with X11 or Wayland on Linux is something which risks itself in losing traction with general users. I always recommend people to don't bother trying out the other distros and use Ubuntu instead. The Linux community is eternally stuck with its micro-ecosystem of alternatives of alternatives of the desktop stack which is best described by Howl's moving Castle of components. Also for future Linux app developers, never tell the user to 'compile' something as a way of distributing your app.
- cycloptic 7y ago
  >The Linux ecosystem needs a standard and unified API or SDK for its desktop endeavour In my opinion, this is incredibly unlikely to happen any time soon. The closest existing thing to that is building web apps targeting Chrome and Chrome OS. If that's not your thing, then I would advise against operating on the assumption that there will ever be a unified SDK. At least for me it's gotten easier to understand and work with the open source world after internalizing that. There are both upsides and downsides to it. Ubuntu is a funny example because they were ready to drop both X and Wayland for a while. They came very close to shipping their own incompatible display server called Mir.
  - rvz 7y ago
    Maybe ChromeOS could do since it is the closest to this idea. But distro-wise, if that's the case then the second last sentence in my previous reply is an unfortunate tautology which doesn't look good for those who just wants work done or needs to reproduce/trace bugs in subsystems. :(
    - cycloptic 7y ago
      My point with web apps is that you can target both Chromebooks (technically a "Linux desktop") and any other system that has the Chrome browser installed. If you're shipping a native B2B application the standard solution I see is to target a specific distro version (Latest RHEL/CentOS, Ubuntu LTS, etc) and tell customers you only support the default desktop. If they want support for some other weird configuration they can pay extra for that.
cycloptic 7y ago
The desktop portal has gained traction. This is what we have right now, I don't know how to solve the problem of vendor- or desktop-specific features that need to be supported in extensions. X has experienced fragmentation from having to do this through its entire existence. I think the only thing a protocol designer really can do is make it easier to ship extensions. If Wayland does that for you, you probably know it already.

by 2ion 7y ago

rvz 7y ago

The Linux ecosystem needs a standard and unified API or SDK for its desktop endeavour like macOS and Windows does. This is why this whole thread on having the user to find out if an app like OBS is running on KDE, GNOME with X11 or Wayland on Linux is something which risks itself in losing traction with general users. I always recommend people to don't bother trying out the other distros and use Ubuntu instead. The Linux community is eternally stuck with its micro-ecosystem of alternatives of alternatives of the desktop stack which is best described by Howl's moving Castle of components. Also for future Linux app developers, never tell the user to 'compile' something as a way of distributing your app.

cycloptic 7y ago
>The Linux ecosystem needs a standard and unified API or SDK for its desktop endeavour In my opinion, this is incredibly unlikely to happen any time soon. The closest existing thing to that is building web apps targeting Chrome and Chrome OS. If that's not your thing, then I would advise against operating on the assumption that there will ever be a unified SDK. At least for me it's gotten easier to understand and work with the open source world after internalizing that. There are both upsides and downsides to it. Ubuntu is a funny example because they were ready to drop both X and Wayland for a while. They came very close to shipping their own incompatible display server called Mir.
- rvz 7y ago
  Maybe ChromeOS could do since it is the closest to this idea. But distro-wise, if that's the case then the second last sentence in my previous reply is an unfortunate tautology which doesn't look good for those who just wants work done or needs to reproduce/trace bugs in subsystems. :(
  - cycloptic 7y ago
    My point with web apps is that you can target both Chromebooks (technically a "Linux desktop") and any other system that has the Chrome browser installed. If you're shipping a native B2B application the standard solution I see is to target a specific distro version (Latest RHEL/CentOS, Ubuntu LTS, etc) and tell customers you only support the default desktop. If they want support for some other weird configuration they can pay extra for that.

cycloptic 7y ago

The desktop portal has gained traction. This is what we have right now, I don't know how to solve the problem of vendor- or desktop-specific features that need to be supported in extensions. X has experienced fragmentation from having to do this through its entire existence. I think the only thing a protocol designer really can do is make it easier to ship extensions. If Wayland does that for you, you probably know it already.