4 ms·

Corporate computers frequently make screen shots or screen recordings of employee interactions. The benefit of being wide open is that no coordination is neede

Corporate computers frequently make screen shots or screen recordings of employee interactions. The benefit of being wide open is that no coordination is needed between desktop environment and developer leading to a wide open field of tools that work on every environment without exception, difference in feature set, no need to check if version foo works on version bar of $DESKTOP. You could of course get virtually the same benefits plus improved security at the cost of some complexity by standardizing the feature in common usage for nearly 30 years towards the beginning of the development cycle of Wayland instead of 13 years in. You point out the need for security and completely ignore the fact that such security could trivially have been obtained without reducing users to obtaining a pile of tools only from their desktop environment or waiting 20 years for things to standardize so they can again pick and choose the best tools for the particular task.

indolering 4y ago
> Corporate computers frequently make screen shots or screen recordings of employee interactions. It's not like they haven't figured out how to do that with Windows or OS X. > The benefit of being wide open is that no coordination is needed between desktop environment and developer The same is true of virtual memory. > You point out the need for security and completely ignore the fact that such security could trivially have been obtained The Xorg developers who tried really hard for decades would disagree with you. That's why programmers that Red Hat used to pay to hack on Xorg now get paid to develop Wayland [0]. [0]: https://www.theregister.com/2020/10/30/x_server_lead_maintainer_declares/ https://www.theregister.com/2020/10/30/x_server_lead_maintai...
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  > The Xorg developers who tried really hard for... You misunderstand. Wayland development started in 2008. Screenshots/recording should have been on the board from day one and they could have gotten to standardizing on how to handle them in oh 2013-2015? The sin is not the extra complexity to secure the system. It's having first zero then more than one way to go about it and 13 years later ending up in the situation where some utilities support only X and some only some Wayland implementations. It's the sin of forcing your users to rip out the walls and stare at the plumbing. What other OS makes you think about display servers? Red Hat doesn't believe in the Linux ecosystem and it shows they believe in their ecosystem with a singular official GUI and unfortunately an ecosystem in which one is required to use only their tools is a mostly mediocre one because they are best in class in nothing and worst in class in many.
  - indolering 4y ago
    > Screenshots/recording should have been on the board from day one and they could have gotten to standardizing on how to handle them in oh 2013-2015? I agree that Wayland's development has taken far too long and the transition has been rocky. But what development team couldn't use more funding? Ubuntu throwing a tantrum after the ecosystem rejected Mir and not contributing to Wayland certainly didn't help. > What other OS makes you think about display servers? I am sympathetic to arguments that Wayland/Weston could provide more functionality out-of-the-box. The bazaar's fragmented mess of "desktop environments" is certainly not a strength compared to what the Cathedrals have produced. But Linux's uniquely modular GUI stack necessitates coordination across lots of projects to develop and adopt standards. But not doing anything and sticking with X11 would have condemned us to being stuck with an insecure, buggy, and visually glitchy mess forever. > Red Hat doesn't believe in the Linux ecosystem I have my qualms with Red Hat too, but my point was that Wayland was created by Xorg developers because they tried and failed to make X11 competitive. Seriously, just go watch this XFree86/Xorg/Wayland developer's talk [1]. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIctzAQOe44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIctzAQOe44
    - michaelmrose 4y ago
      > The bazaar's fragmented mess of "desktop environments" is certainly not a strength compared to what the Cathedrals have produced. I will have to disagree. I like having options. Before Wayland having options meant that your app starting GUI and your file manager was different. If Wayland had meant there were now two options one deprecated and the other coming this wouldn't have really been a huge problem. It's a problem now because insisting on standardizing on so little means we now have fragmentation the likes of which we never had with X and will likely have for many years to come. Even more so because it isn't yet ready about 6 years after its fanboys started insisting it was and shitting on other options and dismissing actual problems as the mutterings of crackpots and luddites. What does "competative" even mean in this context? Linux has had a nicer GUI since 2003 and if you don't hop on the pointless change parade a fairly consistent one. I literally switched to linux for a better interface 19 years ago and its still better.

indolering 4y ago

> Corporate computers frequently make screen shots or screen recordings of employee interactions. It's not like they haven't figured out how to do that with Windows or OS X. > The benefit of being wide open is that no coordination is needed between desktop environment and developer The same is true of virtual memory. > You point out the need for security and completely ignore the fact that such security could trivially have been obtained The Xorg developers who tried really hard for decades would disagree with you. That's why programmers that Red Hat used to pay to hack on Xorg now get paid to develop Wayland [0]. [0]: https://www.theregister.com/2020/10/30/x_server_lead_maintainer_declares/ https://www.theregister.com/2020/10/30/x_server_lead_maintai...

michaelmrose 4y ago
> The Xorg developers who tried really hard for... You misunderstand. Wayland development started in 2008. Screenshots/recording should have been on the board from day one and they could have gotten to standardizing on how to handle them in oh 2013-2015? The sin is not the extra complexity to secure the system. It's having first zero then more than one way to go about it and 13 years later ending up in the situation where some utilities support only X and some only some Wayland implementations. It's the sin of forcing your users to rip out the walls and stare at the plumbing. What other OS makes you think about display servers? Red Hat doesn't believe in the Linux ecosystem and it shows they believe in their ecosystem with a singular official GUI and unfortunately an ecosystem in which one is required to use only their tools is a mostly mediocre one because they are best in class in nothing and worst in class in many.
- indolering 4y ago
  > Screenshots/recording should have been on the board from day one and they could have gotten to standardizing on how to handle them in oh 2013-2015? I agree that Wayland's development has taken far too long and the transition has been rocky. But what development team couldn't use more funding? Ubuntu throwing a tantrum after the ecosystem rejected Mir and not contributing to Wayland certainly didn't help. > What other OS makes you think about display servers? I am sympathetic to arguments that Wayland/Weston could provide more functionality out-of-the-box. The bazaar's fragmented mess of "desktop environments" is certainly not a strength compared to what the Cathedrals have produced. But Linux's uniquely modular GUI stack necessitates coordination across lots of projects to develop and adopt standards. But not doing anything and sticking with X11 would have condemned us to being stuck with an insecure, buggy, and visually glitchy mess forever. > Red Hat doesn't believe in the Linux ecosystem I have my qualms with Red Hat too, but my point was that Wayland was created by Xorg developers because they tried and failed to make X11 competitive. Seriously, just go watch this XFree86/Xorg/Wayland developer's talk [1]. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIctzAQOe44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIctzAQOe44
  - michaelmrose 4y ago
    > The bazaar's fragmented mess of "desktop environments" is certainly not a strength compared to what the Cathedrals have produced. I will have to disagree. I like having options. Before Wayland having options meant that your app starting GUI and your file manager was different. If Wayland had meant there were now two options one deprecated and the other coming this wouldn't have really been a huge problem. It's a problem now because insisting on standardizing on so little means we now have fragmentation the likes of which we never had with X and will likely have for many years to come. Even more so because it isn't yet ready about 6 years after its fanboys started insisting it was and shitting on other options and dismissing actual problems as the mutterings of crackpots and luddites. What does "competative" even mean in this context? Linux has had a nicer GUI since 2003 and if you don't hop on the pointless change parade a fairly consistent one. I literally switched to linux for a better interface 19 years ago and its still better.