5 ms·

wlroots are not used by the two main desktops, so to get basic features like screenshots you need to support 3 different ways already.

by folmar 5y ago

kaba0 5y ago
Wlroots is an implementation of wayland protocols — if gnome and plasma implement the same protocol according to specification, you only have to write code to that protocol, once.
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
  Right, but that protocol isn't in wayland proper and isn't standardized, so GNOME and KDE and wlroots all have different takes.
  - dralley 5y ago
    Right, but the point is that the protocol doesn't need to be in Wayland proper, so long as it's standardized somewhere. And it is. https://flatpak.github.io/xdg-desktop-portal/portal-docs.html https://flatpak.github.io/xdg-desktop-portal/portal-docs.htm...
boudin 5y ago
You're mistaken, that's not the role of wayland. If you're looking into an universal way to takr screenshots, screesncast, etc..., you're looking for xdg-desktop-portal. There'is implementations for wlroots, gnome, qt, and others.
- wing-_-nuts 5y ago
  >You're mistaken, that's not the role of wayland. A side note, but I really hate this ideology of 'x does one thing' outside of command line tools. This is a display server we're talking about. It should be able to enable normal desktop usage. Maybe not everything but core features like brightness control, screen sharing, screenshots, etc. Otherwise every wm that comes along is going to have to reinvent the wheel. There are tons of really great window managers out there, where the authors have looked at all the work it will take to get running on wayland, and have simply thrown their hands up in frustration. It seems to me the only people that really benefit from the switch to wayland are the wayland devs themselves.
  - xxpor 5y ago
    All I know is as a user, Wayland lets me have reasonable HiDPI support (where 2 monitors can have different scale levels). And I can't on X.
  - dralley 5y ago
    Wayland is not a display server, it's a display protocol. There is no "display server" in the architecture.
    - wing-_-nuts 5y ago
      I, as a user, do not give a rats ass if it's a protocol or server. I don't want to lose functionality just because some group of devs prefers to do a rewrite of something. I've used gnome wayland, and sway. It's pretty damning that so few other window managers support wayland due to the sheer difficulty of the task.
      - md8z 5y ago
        Wayland is a protocol specifically for compositing window managers, the point of it was to simplify the implementation of window managers that already existed as X compositors, e.g. Mutter, KWin, Enlightenment. If other window managers weren't doing that then it wouldn't really make sense to port them to Wayland, because that entails also redesigning them as a compositor. I know many older X window managers never bothered to implement a compositor and just recommended people use compiz, compton, picom, etc. Someone could build a compatibility layer based on picom or something, and that has been talked about for a while, but I don't think it will happen unless somebody funds it with some real dollars. And I'm skeptical of whether people using those window managers would even pay for it at all, based on the comments here it seems they would rather put the money towards keeping Xorg alive.

wlroots are not used by the two main desktops, so to get basic features like screenshots you need to support 3 different ways already.

by folmar 5y ago

wlroots are not used by the two main desktops, so to get basic features like screenshots you need to support 3 different ways already.

kaba0 5y ago

Wlroots is an implementation of wayland protocols — if gnome and plasma implement the same protocol according to specification, you only have to write code to that protocol, once.

yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
Right, but that protocol isn't in wayland proper and isn't standardized, so GNOME and KDE and wlroots all have different takes.
- dralley 5y ago
  Right, but the point is that the protocol doesn't need to be in Wayland proper, so long as it's standardized somewhere. And it is. https://flatpak.github.io/xdg-desktop-portal/portal-docs.html https://flatpak.github.io/xdg-desktop-portal/portal-docs.htm...

boudin 5y ago

You're mistaken, that's not the role of wayland. If you're looking into an universal way to takr screenshots, screesncast, etc..., you're looking for xdg-desktop-portal. There'is implementations for wlroots, gnome, qt, and others.

wing-_-nuts 5y ago
>You're mistaken, that's not the role of wayland. A side note, but I really hate this ideology of 'x does one thing' outside of command line tools. This is a display server we're talking about. It should be able to enable normal desktop usage. Maybe not everything but core features like brightness control, screen sharing, screenshots, etc. Otherwise every wm that comes along is going to have to reinvent the wheel. There are tons of really great window managers out there, where the authors have looked at all the work it will take to get running on wayland, and have simply thrown their hands up in frustration. It seems to me the only people that really benefit from the switch to wayland are the wayland devs themselves.
- xxpor 5y ago
  All I know is as a user, Wayland lets me have reasonable HiDPI support (where 2 monitors can have different scale levels). And I can't on X.
- dralley 5y ago
  Wayland is not a display server, it's a display protocol. There is no "display server" in the architecture.
  - wing-_-nuts 5y ago
    I, as a user, do not give a rats ass if it's a protocol or server. I don't want to lose functionality just because some group of devs prefers to do a rewrite of something. I've used gnome wayland, and sway. It's pretty damning that so few other window managers support wayland due to the sheer difficulty of the task.
    - md8z 5y ago
      Wayland is a protocol specifically for compositing window managers, the point of it was to simplify the implementation of window managers that already existed as X compositors, e.g. Mutter, KWin, Enlightenment. If other window managers weren't doing that then it wouldn't really make sense to port them to Wayland, because that entails also redesigning them as a compositor. I know many older X window managers never bothered to implement a compositor and just recommended people use compiz, compton, picom, etc. Someone could build a compatibility layer based on picom or something, and that has been talked about for a while, but I don't think it will happen unless somebody funds it with some real dollars. And I'm skeptical of whether people using those window managers would even pay for it at all, based on the comments here it seems they would rather put the money towards keeping Xorg alive.