3 ms·

TBH I remember your other comments about Wayland across many threads, and most of them have a quality of being confused in such a manner as to provoke long answ

by nsajko 5y ago

TBH I remember your other comments about Wayland across many threads, and most of them have a quality of being confused in such a manner as to provoke long answers and derail the discussion. > a protocol with multiple implementations - which is a good thing The protocol is severely lacking in features. This means the "compositors" end up doing most stuff independently of Wayland, in mutually incompatible way of course. Thus the fragmentation of the Linux desktop: Gnome vs KDE vs wlroots, etc.

kaba0 5y ago
Am I more of a troll than the other low-effort comments claiming false things like “wayland manages to have worse design than X (without any concrete example)”, or that it causes fragmentation in desktop when fragmentation has always been a thing? Good luck using anything dbus-related thing under a minimal wm like dwm.
- ttybird2 5y ago
  "Good luck using anything dbus-related thing under a minimal wm like dwm." ? I never had such an issue.
- nsajko 5y ago
  Sorry for calling you a troll. That wasn't fair to you, and also isn't good for the discussion. > fragmentation No, Wayland introduces new sources of fragmentation that did not exist before. Imagine trying to write a screenshotting program, or an xdotool replacement. > Good luck using anything dbus-related thing under a minimal wm like dwm. Not sure what you're trying to say.
  - kaba0 5y ago
    X11’s desktop tooling heavily relies on dbus for many features. Eg. accessibility is implemented with dbus, which may not be supported by niche window managers. With wayland, now we have a good way to extend the protocol (while it was basically impossible with X due to its age). Of course the dbus-related fragmentation is still here, because not every feature maps cleanly to “it is a display-related feature” that should go into wayland, or “it requires general IPC” and should go into dbus. But unfortunately due to the bazaar style of development, fragmentation will always be a central part of linux, which is both good and bad.

by nsajko 5y ago

kaba0 5y ago

Am I more of a troll than the other low-effort comments claiming false things like “wayland manages to have worse design than X (without any concrete example)”, or that it causes fragmentation in desktop when fragmentation has always been a thing? Good luck using anything dbus-related thing under a minimal wm like dwm.

ttybird2 5y ago
"Good luck using anything dbus-related thing under a minimal wm like dwm." ? I never had such an issue.
nsajko 5y ago
Sorry for calling you a troll. That wasn't fair to you, and also isn't good for the discussion. > fragmentation No, Wayland introduces new sources of fragmentation that did not exist before. Imagine trying to write a screenshotting program, or an xdotool replacement. > Good luck using anything dbus-related thing under a minimal wm like dwm. Not sure what you're trying to say.
- kaba0 5y ago
  X11’s desktop tooling heavily relies on dbus for many features. Eg. accessibility is implemented with dbus, which may not be supported by niche window managers. With wayland, now we have a good way to extend the protocol (while it was basically impossible with X due to its age). Of course the dbus-related fragmentation is still here, because not every feature maps cleanly to “it is a display-related feature” that should go into wayland, or “it requires general IPC” and should go into dbus. But unfortunately due to the bazaar style of development, fragmentation will always be a central part of linux, which is both good and bad.