4 ms·
Because if what's bothering you is the implementation and not the protocol, you should be talking about fixing the implementation instead of diverting attention
by DCKing 6y ago
Because if what's bothering you is the implementation and not the protocol, you should be talking about fixing the implementation instead of diverting attention to the protocol? I might not understand your question here.
- Fellshard 6y agoIf every implementation of a protocol seems stuck with deal-breaking bugs or incompatibilities, it's time to start asking whether the protocol itself has some problems that make it impossible to implement consistently - unstated assumptions, for example, in the reference implementation that never made it to the protocol spec. For a modern example of this in action, see Bluetooth and the madhouse of device 'quirks' you have to settle with day-to-day, since each device has subtly protocol-breaking opinions on how to implement it.
- DCKing 6y agoI would agree here, if you could make a reasonable case that the problems trace back the protocol. But my point here is that practically all issues at hand happen outside of what Wayland is used for. Wayland is a display protocol. Practically all of the pain people are experiencing has nothing to do with how Gnome/KDE/Sway really display things differently. The pain everybody experiences is that the realization that suddenly we need a new input stack too, a new way to screenshare, a new way to do clipboard access, a new way to do a bunch of other things. All stuff that also needs to made, standardized, and achieve maturity outside of the new display protocol. It's tempting to call that fallout of other stuff that needs to be changed "Wayland" as well, but I'd say that misses the point completely and calling it that won't help anyone get this stuff fixed.
- Fellshard 6y agoSo there's a terminology conflation issue, then: people attacking Wayland proper for issues that are actually about the 'Wayland ecosystem'. I could see that generating increasing problems if there is no observable gameplan for or encouragement to develop those pieces people have come to expect of a full desktop stack. Mind that I have no formed opinion of Wayland myself, having not used it. Trying to deduce probable causes from hearing people duke it out here and elsewhere.
- DCKing 6y agoI would say that's a fair summary. On Linux, there's X11 based desktops and "post-X11" desktops. "Post-X11" would involve implementations of Wayland and Freedesktop Portals [1], using libinput [2] - and some other things I'm forgetting. All these things don't depend on Wayland and run fine on X11 too (heck you can even run a Wayland compositor in an X11 window), but most of this stuff is pretty new, implementations have lots of QA issues, and application adoption is also not fantastic. On X11 you can just talk to the X11 socket directly for what you want as a workaround, but on post-X11 you have to adopt a new means of doing it. And that hurts. [1]: https://flatpak.github.io/xdg-desktop-portal/portal-docs.html https://flatpak.github.io/xdg-desktop-portal/portal-docs.htm... [2]: https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/libinput/ https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/libinput/
- Too 6y agoIt's funny that in the case of systemd both the scenario and hence also the complaints were the complete opposite. Namely that systemd does everything, that in an idealistic world should have been decoupled from the core. (Which was also FUD since the internals actually are decoupled and work alone).
- mongol 6y agoIt is like blaming HTTP because of the cookie warnings you get everywhere. Yes, cookies are part of HTTP, but the warnings are not.