4 ms·

> 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 t

> 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
  > 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. I agree that the transition has been long and messy. But the Linux desktop experience has always been a fragmented mess of half-baked apps that quickly fall into disrepair. Wayland breaks a lot of stuff that has been in maintenance mode for a long time. That sucks, but it's not a good argument for sticking with X11. The situation with X11 had been unacceptable ever since the adoption of virtual memory and Wayland is the only real alternative. > 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. I'm not going to criticize the boundaries of a standard that I haven't been deeply involved with. I understand their impulse to keep it minimal, as Wayland is something of a forever standard. But I am sympathetic to arguments that Wayland doesn't do enough. > 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. If by "other options" you mean Mir, my memory is that the primary criticism of Mir's original architecture replicated Wayland in an incompatible way without any good reason for doing so. Eventually Mir was re-architected to layer it on top of Wayland and does provide more of the batteries you seem to want to have by default. If by "other options" you mean X11 ... only crackpots and luddites think applications should be able to spy on each other [0]. What other options were there? > What does "competitive" even mean in this context? * Not having every app double as a key-logger. * A working screen-locker. * Not tearing on window resize or scrolling while a video plays. * Multi-DPI monitors. * Non-blocking API calls. * etc [1]. I remember context menus being especially glitchy. > 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. Let me guess, you use some "minimalist" desktop environment? I'm not here to hate on people that don't need what most consider a modern user experience. If that's what you want, that's great! I was into lightweight desktop environments for a while and liked exploring that design space. But I'm also a usability engineer who remembers Linux back then: it was not competitive with OS X and it still isn't. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TempleOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TempleOS [1]: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=x_wayland_situation https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=x_waylan...

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
> 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. I agree that the transition has been long and messy. But the Linux desktop experience has always been a fragmented mess of half-baked apps that quickly fall into disrepair. Wayland breaks a lot of stuff that has been in maintenance mode for a long time. That sucks, but it's not a good argument for sticking with X11. The situation with X11 had been unacceptable ever since the adoption of virtual memory and Wayland is the only real alternative. > 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. I'm not going to criticize the boundaries of a standard that I haven't been deeply involved with. I understand their impulse to keep it minimal, as Wayland is something of a forever standard. But I am sympathetic to arguments that Wayland doesn't do enough. > 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. If by "other options" you mean Mir, my memory is that the primary criticism of Mir's original architecture replicated Wayland in an incompatible way without any good reason for doing so. Eventually Mir was re-architected to layer it on top of Wayland and does provide more of the batteries you seem to want to have by default. If by "other options" you mean X11 ... only crackpots and luddites think applications should be able to spy on each other [0]. What other options were there? > What does "competitive" even mean in this context? * Not having every app double as a key-logger. * A working screen-locker. * Not tearing on window resize or scrolling while a video plays. * Multi-DPI monitors. * Non-blocking API calls. * etc [1]. I remember context menus being especially glitchy. > 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. Let me guess, you use some "minimalist" desktop environment? I'm not here to hate on people that don't need what most consider a modern user experience. If that's what you want, that's great! I was into lightweight desktop environments for a while and liked exploring that design space. But I'm also a usability engineer who remembers Linux back then: it was not competitive with OS X and it still isn't. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TempleOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TempleOS [1]: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=x_wayland_situation https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=x_waylan...