4 ms·
No, it's not. It's acknowledging that this is a new protocol, and is intentionally not designed to be a drop-in replacement for X because it makes different tr
by favorited 4y ago
No, it's not. It's acknowledging that this is a new protocol, and is intentionally not designed to be a drop-in replacement for X because it makes different trade-offs.
Do you really think that Linux users are asking "why do you want that?" about screen sharing applications? Of course not. You can't implement screen sharing the same way you did in X, and software will need to change if it wants to support Wayland.
- noobermin 4y agoQuite the statement on an article that lists the biggest apps for screenrecording (like obs) saying wayland is broken and they won't work with it. Just pure persistence in the face of contrary evidence in front of your eyes. If OBS can't figure out how to support wayland there's something wrong with wayland.
- byteduck 4y agoThis gist is from 2020. OBS does support Wayland now, AFAIK.
- ironmagma 4y agoIt falls into a general bucket of vaguely gaslighting behavior wherein the person talking about how a particular use case is important, is met with the claim that it isn’t because of some reason (either it’s not a good use case, software design shouldn’t allow it, or it’s “already possible” in some convoluted way). This isn’t a unique situation, this kind of response happens over and over in the Linux community.
- favorited 4y agoExcept no one ever said “software design shouldn’t allow it,” which is the claim here. They said “this software won’t implement that feature the same way that other did, so there will need to be wider changes.” Which shouldn’t surprise anyone changing their display server.
- ironmagma 4y agoThey said Wayland is good design because it doesn’t allow this feature. > I don't want one process to be able to […] see what's displayed on another processes windows