13 ms·

Just to take a couple of examples from that list: ydotool is listed there as an equivalent of xdotool, but ydotool has only a tiny fraction of the features of

Just to take a couple of examples from that list: ydotool is listed there as an equivalent of xdotool, but ydotool has only a tiny fraction of the features of xdotool. And it's unlikely that it'll get much better any time soon, as its README says: "Since Jun, 2019, I have little time to maintain this project" wtype is listed as another equivalent to xdotool, but it has even less features than ydotool. If the rest of the X equivalents on that list are as feature poor as these, I don't hold out much hope for Wayland in the near future.

horsawlarway 6y ago
I find this comment deeply ironic. You're here complaining that a maintainer isn't around to add features in a thread that's literally a major maintainer of X server telling you he's not going to work to maintain the project anymore. --- Here's my take on your position - I absolutely agree that if you have processes and tooling in place that you currently depend on, and can't replace, you should stick with X. That said - As a way to manage input and output on my system (MY system, with my preferences and my requirements) I've found Wayland to be a delightfully better experience than X. So to come back at your list of requirements, mine looks like - Multimonitor support, including mixed scaling ratios - Touchpad input with gestures, approximately in line with the experience on OSX - A sane "default" that does not constantly require that I manually edit settings or xconf files on EVERY system I touch - No screen tearing or flickering. Seriously - NO! --- The difference between the two lists, is that I believe Wayland can eventually replace the tools you need. I no longer have any faith that X will be able to solve my requirements. Wayland does.
- CarelessExpert 6y ago
  > You're here complaining that a maintainer isn't around to add features in a thread that's literally a major maintainer of X server telling you he's not going to work to maintain the project anymore. I... think you already understand why this is a disingenuous argument, but I'll explain anyway: The difference is, for most folks, X works, right now, today, while its maintainership is in question. For example, of the four items you listed, none of them particularly matter to me. ydotool, as an example, doesn't work and it's not maintained. Does that make sense? > I believe Wayland can eventually replace the tools you need Alright, well, ten years from now we should revisit this conversation! Unfortunately, at this point, the Wayland ecosystem is looking a bit like Zeno's Paradox...
  - horsawlarway 6y ago
    My opinion - today - is that X doesn't work on laptops where the user expects to use a touchpad. Nor does it work on a laptop with a resolution that requires scaling (at least not the second you plug in another display). It also takes a hell of a lot more configuration to reach that state. It's also not maintained. So no disrespect, but it really sounds like your argument has boiled down to "I won't acknowledge issues unless they personally impact me and my daily workflow". Now - I'm fine with that when you're making an argument for the machine you should use personally (hell, I agree with you, if X works and you like, rock on). But that's a pretty disingenuous take to make while discussing the merits of the platform with other folks.
    - CarelessExpert 6y ago
      > My opinion - today - is that X doesn't work on laptops where the user expects to use a touchpad. Nor does it work on a laptop with a resolution that requires scaling (at least not the second you plug in another display). None of those issues actually make X unusable. And I say that while writing this on an X1 Carbon running Debian testing using X in a multi-monitor setup (and yes, this is a totally plug-and-play setup with zero monkeying around in config files... a fact that, frankly, amazes me, having grown up hacking X modelines). Wayland, by contrast, is literally unusable (as in, it lacks fundamental features that make it something people can't use) in many circumstances due to either compositor bugs, features that don't work by design, or features that don't work due to a lack of solutions or a lack of adoption of those solutions. And I know this because I've tried to use it. I really like the possibilities it opens up. But it's so far from mature, at this point, that it simply cannot act as an X replacement for most people. Frankly, I'm a little shocked distros are making Wayland their default display server ecosystem, as it's an objective step backward for desktop Linux and I expect will scare a lot of neophytes away who wonder why the hell basic features like screensharing still don't yet work in their favourite application.
      - horsawlarway 6y ago
        Funny, I'm writing this on a Arch/Gnome/Wayland XPS machine, that I use as my daily driver. So clearly it's not "literally unusable". > Frankly, I'm a little shocked distros are making Wayland their default display server ecosystem They're making it the default because it work better for most people. You may not be most people, but I can at least concede that X is probably still the right choice for you. You seem to be unable to have a good faith conversation about the merits of Wayland.
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  "You're here complaining that a maintainer isn't around to add features in a thread that's literally a major maintainer of X server telling you he's not going to work to maintain the project anymore." The difference is that a huge number of essential features both exist and actually work in X, but not in Wayland. That particular X developer might have abandoned X, but X itself is still here, still works, and still does what I need. Can't say the same about Wayland, yet...
  - emersion 6y ago
    Nobody is forcing you to use Wayland. Nobody is arguing that X.org's server will disappear from the face of the earth.
    - jolmg 6y ago
      > Nobody is arguing that X.org's server will disappear from the face of the earth. Actually, that's exactly one of the major reasons put forth for switching to Wayland. The very comment you replied to quotes it: >>> a major maintainer of X server telling you he's not going to work to maintain the project anymore If the project ends up truly unmaintained, it really would end up disappearing from the face of the earth as the platform under it (the hardware, the kernel, etc.) changes to the point that it becomes non-functional.
      - horsawlarway 6y ago
        I'm sorry, this sounds like some strange mix of entitlement and unwillingness to explore new solutions. You don't want people to use a new thing because it might siphon off resource you're benefitting from now? If you love X, go work on it, or pay people to. Otherwise... what possible point are you trying to make?
        jolmg 6y ago
        > ... entitlement and unwillingness ... You don't want ... Did I express any want in my comment? I didn't even say anything about my preferences. I wonder if perhaps you replied to the wrong comment? > what possible point are you trying to make? To correct emersion about Wayland being an option. Do you think what I said was incorrect?
cycloptic 6y ago
I said this last time, but ydotool probably won't ever have the same features as xdotool because the scope isn't the same. A lot of the X commands in xdotool don't even make sense in the context of wayland, so it would be unreasonable for them to have the same scope.
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  As an end-user, the fact that Wayland can't do what I need while X can is a black mark against Wayland.
  - cycloptic 6y ago
    I don't understand where you're getting this idea that Wayland is or was supposed to do all the same things as X in exactly the same way. It's not, that's the entire point. As an end-user you can continue to use what works for you. Yes X is much more flexible at some things (and Wayland is more flexible at others) but it comes at a cost which is expounded on by the article.
    - CarelessExpert 6y ago
      > I don't understand where you're getting this idea that Wayland is or was supposed to do all the same things as X in exactly the same way. It's not, that's the entire point. Ahh, classic: blame the user. You are wrong for expecting things to work in a way that's familiar! Global hotkey bindings? Sure, that works on Windows, macOS, and X, but it doesn't on Wayland and its your fault for expecting it. The beatings will continue until morale improves! > As an end-user you can continue to use what works for you. LOL, Wayland is literally being marketed as the replacement for X. It's even the default display server in Debian, Ubuntu, and (I think?) Fedora. Why are you surprised that people therefore expect stuff that works in X to work in Wayland?
      - cycloptic 6y ago
        Please tone down the rhetoric, I'm not blaming anybody. X is still included on those distros as a fallback option in case you have something that doesn't work. Re global hotkey bindings: Can you please describe your setup to me? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, global hotkeys were supported in all the Wayland implementations I tried recently. (KDE, GNOME, Sway, Wayfire)

horsawlarway 6y ago

I find this comment deeply ironic. You're here complaining that a maintainer isn't around to add features in a thread that's literally a major maintainer of X server telling you he's not going to work to maintain the project anymore. --- Here's my take on your position - I absolutely agree that if you have processes and tooling in place that you currently depend on, and can't replace, you should stick with X. That said - As a way to manage input and output on my system (MY system, with my preferences and my requirements) I've found Wayland to be a delightfully better experience than X. So to come back at your list of requirements, mine looks like - Multimonitor support, including mixed scaling ratios - Touchpad input with gestures, approximately in line with the experience on OSX - A sane "default" that does not constantly require that I manually edit settings or xconf files on EVERY system I touch - No screen tearing or flickering. Seriously - NO! --- The difference between the two lists, is that I believe Wayland can eventually replace the tools you need. I no longer have any faith that X will be able to solve my requirements. Wayland does.

CarelessExpert 6y ago
> You're here complaining that a maintainer isn't around to add features in a thread that's literally a major maintainer of X server telling you he's not going to work to maintain the project anymore. I... think you already understand why this is a disingenuous argument, but I'll explain anyway: The difference is, for most folks, X works, right now, today, while its maintainership is in question. For example, of the four items you listed, none of them particularly matter to me. ydotool, as an example, doesn't work and it's not maintained. Does that make sense? > I believe Wayland can eventually replace the tools you need Alright, well, ten years from now we should revisit this conversation! Unfortunately, at this point, the Wayland ecosystem is looking a bit like Zeno's Paradox...
- horsawlarway 6y ago
  My opinion - today - is that X doesn't work on laptops where the user expects to use a touchpad. Nor does it work on a laptop with a resolution that requires scaling (at least not the second you plug in another display). It also takes a hell of a lot more configuration to reach that state. It's also not maintained. So no disrespect, but it really sounds like your argument has boiled down to "I won't acknowledge issues unless they personally impact me and my daily workflow". Now - I'm fine with that when you're making an argument for the machine you should use personally (hell, I agree with you, if X works and you like, rock on). But that's a pretty disingenuous take to make while discussing the merits of the platform with other folks.
  - CarelessExpert 6y ago
    > My opinion - today - is that X doesn't work on laptops where the user expects to use a touchpad. Nor does it work on a laptop with a resolution that requires scaling (at least not the second you plug in another display). None of those issues actually make X unusable. And I say that while writing this on an X1 Carbon running Debian testing using X in a multi-monitor setup (and yes, this is a totally plug-and-play setup with zero monkeying around in config files... a fact that, frankly, amazes me, having grown up hacking X modelines). Wayland, by contrast, is literally unusable (as in, it lacks fundamental features that make it something people can't use) in many circumstances due to either compositor bugs, features that don't work by design, or features that don't work due to a lack of solutions or a lack of adoption of those solutions. And I know this because I've tried to use it. I really like the possibilities it opens up. But it's so far from mature, at this point, that it simply cannot act as an X replacement for most people. Frankly, I'm a little shocked distros are making Wayland their default display server ecosystem, as it's an objective step backward for desktop Linux and I expect will scare a lot of neophytes away who wonder why the hell basic features like screensharing still don't yet work in their favourite application.
    - horsawlarway 6y ago
      Funny, I'm writing this on a Arch/Gnome/Wayland XPS machine, that I use as my daily driver. So clearly it's not "literally unusable". > Frankly, I'm a little shocked distros are making Wayland their default display server ecosystem They're making it the default because it work better for most people. You may not be most people, but I can at least concede that X is probably still the right choice for you. You seem to be unable to have a good faith conversation about the merits of Wayland.
pmoriarty 6y ago
"You're here complaining that a maintainer isn't around to add features in a thread that's literally a major maintainer of X server telling you he's not going to work to maintain the project anymore." The difference is that a huge number of essential features both exist and actually work in X, but not in Wayland. That particular X developer might have abandoned X, but X itself is still here, still works, and still does what I need. Can't say the same about Wayland, yet...
- emersion 6y ago
  Nobody is forcing you to use Wayland. Nobody is arguing that X.org's server will disappear from the face of the earth.
  - jolmg 6y ago
    > Nobody is arguing that X.org's server will disappear from the face of the earth. Actually, that's exactly one of the major reasons put forth for switching to Wayland. The very comment you replied to quotes it: >>> a major maintainer of X server telling you he's not going to work to maintain the project anymore If the project ends up truly unmaintained, it really would end up disappearing from the face of the earth as the platform under it (the hardware, the kernel, etc.) changes to the point that it becomes non-functional.
    - horsawlarway 6y ago
      I'm sorry, this sounds like some strange mix of entitlement and unwillingness to explore new solutions. You don't want people to use a new thing because it might siphon off resource you're benefitting from now? If you love X, go work on it, or pay people to. Otherwise... what possible point are you trying to make?
      - jolmg 6y ago
        > ... entitlement and unwillingness ... You don't want ... Did I express any want in my comment? I didn't even say anything about my preferences. I wonder if perhaps you replied to the wrong comment? > what possible point are you trying to make? To correct emersion about Wayland being an option. Do you think what I said was incorrect?

cycloptic 6y ago

I said this last time, but ydotool probably won't ever have the same features as xdotool because the scope isn't the same. A lot of the X commands in xdotool don't even make sense in the context of wayland, so it would be unreasonable for them to have the same scope.

pmoriarty 6y ago
As an end-user, the fact that Wayland can't do what I need while X can is a black mark against Wayland.
- cycloptic 6y ago
  I don't understand where you're getting this idea that Wayland is or was supposed to do all the same things as X in exactly the same way. It's not, that's the entire point. As an end-user you can continue to use what works for you. Yes X is much more flexible at some things (and Wayland is more flexible at others) but it comes at a cost which is expounded on by the article.
  - CarelessExpert 6y ago
    > I don't understand where you're getting this idea that Wayland is or was supposed to do all the same things as X in exactly the same way. It's not, that's the entire point. Ahh, classic: blame the user. You are wrong for expecting things to work in a way that's familiar! Global hotkey bindings? Sure, that works on Windows, macOS, and X, but it doesn't on Wayland and its your fault for expecting it. The beatings will continue until morale improves! > As an end-user you can continue to use what works for you. LOL, Wayland is literally being marketed as the replacement for X. It's even the default display server in Debian, Ubuntu, and (I think?) Fedora. Why are you surprised that people therefore expect stuff that works in X to work in Wayland?
    - cycloptic 6y ago
      Please tone down the rhetoric, I'm not blaming anybody. X is still included on those distros as a fallback option in case you have something that doesn't work. Re global hotkey bindings: Can you please describe your setup to me? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, global hotkeys were supported in all the Wayland implementations I tried recently. (KDE, GNOME, Sway, Wayfire)