4 ms·

I have done some hacking on Wayland and most of the comments there about Wayland are misleading or wrong. I could go through that list but I don't know if I'm r

by md8z 5y ago

I have done some hacking on Wayland and most of the comments there about Wayland are misleading or wrong. I could go through that list but I don't know if I'm really interested to do that unless the author reads the feedback and could be convinced to change their article. It is really exhausting to deal with online misinformation unless it's stopped at the source.

itvision 5y ago
You could email him or leave comments under the article. All valid criticism has been addressed and the article keeps being updated. It's its 500th revision or something like that.
- md8z 5y ago
  Maybe I'll go through it if I have time but there are several other things that are really wrong or misleading in the article, it's a research project in itself to correct all the misinformation there. (A lot of the article is mostly correct though so it's probably an even worse situation for a reader) Also a huge part of it is that the author is asking for things that don't really make sense e.g. "Wayland does not provide a basic universal unified graphical toolkit/API (and Wayland developers will not implement it) akin to Win32" Wayland sits at a level below the toolkit, it is an implementation detail in the toolkit. You're supposed to build toolkits on top of it. It wouldn't be feasible (or even wanted) to move the toolkit inside Wayland. A lot of these other criticisms are along these lines, i.e. a misunderstanding of what Wayland actually is. That bug report that was filed is not even actionable because of this. Also edit: Sorry, I just noticed you're the author, you could mention that :) I'm not trying to give you a hard time here, but that whole part needs to be rewritten I think, because basically everything in it stems from a major misconception and is not constructive feedback because of that. I am actually in agreement with your thesis though, the "Linux desktop" (whatever collection of random 1000 git repositories that refers to this week) is pretty flawed. And Wayland definitely is flawed too, just not in any of the ways that were mentioned.
  - itvision 5y ago
    > there are several other things that are really wrong or misleading in the article When I see generalization about a ton of stuff I instantly get suspicious about such claims. The article cannot be as wrong as you're trying hard to portray it. > it's a research project in itself to correct all the misinformation there You're really a fan of "misinformation". Sorry, the guy who wrote it, has been using Linux for more than two decades and is trying to be as unbiased and factual as possible. Looks like you're just too invested in Linux and you've been personally shaken that such an article even exists in the first place. > Wayland sits at a level below the toolkit, it is an implementation detail in the toolkit. You're supposed to build toolkits on top of it. It wouldn't be feasible (or even wanted) to move the toolkit inside Wayland. What's wrong with this claim exactly? You're not disproving it in the slightest, you are _explaining_ why it has been done the way it's been done. Most people don't give a damn about it. Most 32bit Windows applications continue to run in Windows 11 26 years later. Linux, be it X11, Wayland or Mir, has no alternative to that. Yes, the author wants some LTS API for graphics, do you have anything to add to that? How does having Qt/Gnome/EFL/etc even address the issues shown in the article like inability to configure all the toolkits font rendering and other features simultaneously? Had we had a low lever API akin to Win32 which toolkits like e.g. Gnome/Qt could be built upon, that would have never been an issue, meanwhile Linux developers continue to reinvent the wheel and _not_ provide universal solutions which allow to build software on top of it which will work for decades without recompilation. You really don't see where the author comes from, yeah, Windows, where software can be developed and work for decades. Just don't start BS'ing me with "everything could be recompiled for $next versions of Gnome/Qt" - this has _not_ been the case, we've lost hundreds of GTK 1/2, Qt 1/2/3/4 applications which no one wants to port to newer toolkits. Actually please don't bother with your "refutations". I see where you're coming from and I'm sure you'll continue in the same vein which is "Linux is built differently, get used to it". I can, I have but ISVs and game developers will _not_. If you're OK with no commercial software and AAA games for Linux, absolute most average people are _not_. They want to play native games and run native Adobe/Autodesk/etc. software under Linux. I can imagine you could be content with having always incomplete layers of emulation and VMs which further prove that other OSes like Windows are built and designed better, since Win32 APIs are so easy to emulate. Had you started differently I'd have been glad to continue arguing with you but you've used the meanest and dirtiest words to describe the work put into the article which is an instant turn off and a clear indication that you might have a superiority complex.

by md8z 5y ago

itvision 5y ago

You could email him or leave comments under the article. All valid criticism has been addressed and the article keeps being updated. It's its 500th revision or something like that.

md8z 5y ago
Maybe I'll go through it if I have time but there are several other things that are really wrong or misleading in the article, it's a research project in itself to correct all the misinformation there. (A lot of the article is mostly correct though so it's probably an even worse situation for a reader) Also a huge part of it is that the author is asking for things that don't really make sense e.g. "Wayland does not provide a basic universal unified graphical toolkit/API (and Wayland developers will not implement it) akin to Win32" Wayland sits at a level below the toolkit, it is an implementation detail in the toolkit. You're supposed to build toolkits on top of it. It wouldn't be feasible (or even wanted) to move the toolkit inside Wayland. A lot of these other criticisms are along these lines, i.e. a misunderstanding of what Wayland actually is. That bug report that was filed is not even actionable because of this. Also edit: Sorry, I just noticed you're the author, you could mention that :) I'm not trying to give you a hard time here, but that whole part needs to be rewritten I think, because basically everything in it stems from a major misconception and is not constructive feedback because of that. I am actually in agreement with your thesis though, the "Linux desktop" (whatever collection of random 1000 git repositories that refers to this week) is pretty flawed. And Wayland definitely is flawed too, just not in any of the ways that were mentioned.
- itvision 5y ago
  > there are several other things that are really wrong or misleading in the article When I see generalization about a ton of stuff I instantly get suspicious about such claims. The article cannot be as wrong as you're trying hard to portray it. > it's a research project in itself to correct all the misinformation there You're really a fan of "misinformation". Sorry, the guy who wrote it, has been using Linux for more than two decades and is trying to be as unbiased and factual as possible. Looks like you're just too invested in Linux and you've been personally shaken that such an article even exists in the first place. > Wayland sits at a level below the toolkit, it is an implementation detail in the toolkit. You're supposed to build toolkits on top of it. It wouldn't be feasible (or even wanted) to move the toolkit inside Wayland. What's wrong with this claim exactly? You're not disproving it in the slightest, you are _explaining_ why it has been done the way it's been done. Most people don't give a damn about it. Most 32bit Windows applications continue to run in Windows 11 26 years later. Linux, be it X11, Wayland or Mir, has no alternative to that. Yes, the author wants some LTS API for graphics, do you have anything to add to that? How does having Qt/Gnome/EFL/etc even address the issues shown in the article like inability to configure all the toolkits font rendering and other features simultaneously? Had we had a low lever API akin to Win32 which toolkits like e.g. Gnome/Qt could be built upon, that would have never been an issue, meanwhile Linux developers continue to reinvent the wheel and _not_ provide universal solutions which allow to build software on top of it which will work for decades without recompilation. You really don't see where the author comes from, yeah, Windows, where software can be developed and work for decades. Just don't start BS'ing me with "everything could be recompiled for $next versions of Gnome/Qt" - this has _not_ been the case, we've lost hundreds of GTK 1/2, Qt 1/2/3/4 applications which no one wants to port to newer toolkits. Actually please don't bother with your "refutations". I see where you're coming from and I'm sure you'll continue in the same vein which is "Linux is built differently, get used to it". I can, I have but ISVs and game developers will _not_. If you're OK with no commercial software and AAA games for Linux, absolute most average people are _not_. They want to play native games and run native Adobe/Autodesk/etc. software under Linux. I can imagine you could be content with having always incomplete layers of emulation and VMs which further prove that other OSes like Windows are built and designed better, since Win32 APIs are so easy to emulate. Had you started differently I'd have been glad to continue arguing with you but you've used the meanest and dirtiest words to describe the work put into the article which is an instant turn off and a clear indication that you might have a superiority complex.