3 ms·

Of course it's not broken. The architecture only prevents it from being as good as modern desktops. Think screen tearing, multi-resolution multi-screen support,

by bzzzt 4y ago

Of course it's not broken. The architecture only prevents it from being as good as modern desktops. Think screen tearing, multi-resolution multi-screen support, plug and play support for multiple GPU's, monitors, refresh rates, color spaces and input devices. Those are all functions macOS and even Windows have had for years (ever reloaded your graphics driver without shutting down applications? Windows can do that since Vista...) Since X does not have the right architecture for those kind of features it's unfit for modern desktops. Also, lots of X functions are no longer necessary or even practical to use anymore. Why is Windows remote desktop useable with an order less bandwidth than most X clients. (of course that's all the clients fault and not the X server, but that doesn't matter for users does it?) If you want a vintage Unix workstation lookalike running 4 xterms and xeyes on a static desktop PC with a single ethernet connection X will do fine. But why force other people to look at the world in such a limited way?

smoldesu 4y ago
> Of course it's not broken. The architecture only prevents it from being as good as modern desktops. Think screen tearing, multi-resolution multi-screen support, plug and play support for multiple GPU's, monitors, refresh rates, color spaces and input devices. I mean, most of those things aren't solved problems on Wayland either. The only thing we "solved" was screen tearing issues (fixed in most x11 compositors anyways...), configurable DPI is still extremely buggy, extended color spaces haven't even started development afaik and Xorg's input handling is still architecturally fairly sane. The 'problem' is that these hacks we used to use on x11 still feel better to use than their Wayland alternatives. Plus, once you consider all of the functionality, software compatibility and desktop environments we sacrificed for this meager victory, it seems utterly pyrrhic. Nothing of value was gained for the overwhelming majority of the software ecosystem. > Since X does not have the right architecture for those kind of features it's unfit for modern desktops. I agree. Consider the following: Wayland doesn't feature support for AppIndicators, which both MacOS and Windows have had for... 30 years. Is that befitting of a modern window server? Nobody's asking them to support it in GNOME, but rather to offer simple hooks in the code for the vast majority (eg. KDE, i3wm, Sway, Budgie, GNOME 3, MATE, LXDE, XFCE, etc.) of desktops that would want that functionality? It's another anti-cooperative move on the behalf of GNOME's development team, which is why it's no wonder that the rest of the community has abandoned the prospect of working with them. x11 needs to die urgently, and watching Wayland fail to replace Xorg, one of most ill-concieved software systems ever designed, makes me want to pull my hair out. > If you want a vintage Unix workstation lookalike running 4 xterms and xeyes on a static desktop PC with a single ethernet connection X will do fine. But why force other people to look at the world in such a limited way? Be pragmatic. If GNOME went Wayland-only tomorrow, 90% of the Nvidia systems would break overnight, that's not just ostracizing "Unix workstation lookalike" users. The reason Xorg is still around is obvious: Wayland simply isn't complete. The vast majority of desktop environments don't support it. The vast majority of desktop applications run worse on it. I despise x11 for being as crusty and stiff as it is, but I can run it on all of my systems without any problems. I can't do that with Wayland, and until I can, I have no reason to switch. x11 is superior for my workflow, full stop. There's no appeal to use it when only one or two of my computers actually run it well, and the rest have horrible showstopping bugs.
- Crysstalis 4y ago
  >configurable DPI is still extremely buggy, extended color spaces haven't even started development Those have started development. They're not done yet. Compare to X11 where no one is working on fixing those things. >Wayland doesn't feature support for AppIndicators App indicators are not a wayland or X thing, the API has been in dbus for some 10 odd years now. >but rather to offer simple hooks in the code for the vast majority (eg. KDE, i3wm, Sway, Budgie, GNOME 3, MATE, LXDE, XFCE, etc.) of desktops that would want that functionality? It's another anti-cooperative move on the behalf of GNOME's development team, which is why it's no wonder that the rest of the community has abandoned the prospect of working with them. I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here, all those other desktops do already have their own way they implemented app indicators. For GNOME it is available via an extension. There is nothing anti-cooperative about this and nothing was abandoned. >Wayland simply isn't complete. The vast majority of desktop applications run worse on it. I despise x11 for being as crusty and stiff as it is, but I can run it on all of my systems without any problems. I can't do that with Wayland, and until I can, I have no reason to switch. x11 is superior for my workflow, full stop. There's no appeal to use it when only one or two of my computers actually run it well, and the rest have horrible showstopping bugs. I don't think this matters much, most of them are very small niche projects in the already small Linux niche. If you found bugs then report them, there is no other way they get fixed. Staying on x11 forever is not a viable option. Wayland probably won't ever be complete, but x11 is both incomplete and abandoned.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    I feel like there was a real failure to engage here, which is a shame because hating both of these window servers is something that I could do all day. However, I'll leave you with this: > Staying on x11 forever is not a viable option. "Staying on GTK2 forever is not a viable option." "Staying on GTK3 forever is not a viable option." "Using native packaging forever is not a viable option." "Using Linux kernel v4.19 forever is not a viable option." I wonder how many times I've heard this mantra repeated before...
    - Crysstalis 4y ago

by bzzzt 4y ago

smoldesu 4y ago

> Of course it's not broken. The architecture only prevents it from being as good as modern desktops. Think screen tearing, multi-resolution multi-screen support, plug and play support for multiple GPU's, monitors, refresh rates, color spaces and input devices. I mean, most of those things aren't solved problems on Wayland either. The only thing we "solved" was screen tearing issues (fixed in most x11 compositors anyways...), configurable DPI is still extremely buggy, extended color spaces haven't even started development afaik and Xorg's input handling is still architecturally fairly sane. The 'problem' is that these hacks we used to use on x11 still feel better to use than their Wayland alternatives. Plus, once you consider all of the functionality, software compatibility and desktop environments we sacrificed for this meager victory, it seems utterly pyrrhic. Nothing of value was gained for the overwhelming majority of the software ecosystem. > Since X does not have the right architecture for those kind of features it's unfit for modern desktops. I agree. Consider the following: Wayland doesn't feature support for AppIndicators, which both MacOS and Windows have had for... 30 years. Is that befitting of a modern window server? Nobody's asking them to support it in GNOME, but rather to offer simple hooks in the code for the vast majority (eg. KDE, i3wm, Sway, Budgie, GNOME 3, MATE, LXDE, XFCE, etc.) of desktops that would want that functionality? It's another anti-cooperative move on the behalf of GNOME's development team, which is why it's no wonder that the rest of the community has abandoned the prospect of working with them. x11 needs to die urgently, and watching Wayland fail to replace Xorg, one of most ill-concieved software systems ever designed, makes me want to pull my hair out. > If you want a vintage Unix workstation lookalike running 4 xterms and xeyes on a static desktop PC with a single ethernet connection X will do fine. But why force other people to look at the world in such a limited way? Be pragmatic. If GNOME went Wayland-only tomorrow, 90% of the Nvidia systems would break overnight, that's not just ostracizing "Unix workstation lookalike" users. The reason Xorg is still around is obvious: Wayland simply isn't complete. The vast majority of desktop environments don't support it. The vast majority of desktop applications run worse on it. I despise x11 for being as crusty and stiff as it is, but I can run it on all of my systems without any problems. I can't do that with Wayland, and until I can, I have no reason to switch. x11 is superior for my workflow, full stop. There's no appeal to use it when only one or two of my computers actually run it well, and the rest have horrible showstopping bugs.

Crysstalis 4y ago
>configurable DPI is still extremely buggy, extended color spaces haven't even started development Those have started development. They're not done yet. Compare to X11 where no one is working on fixing those things. >Wayland doesn't feature support for AppIndicators App indicators are not a wayland or X thing, the API has been in dbus for some 10 odd years now. >but rather to offer simple hooks in the code for the vast majority (eg. KDE, i3wm, Sway, Budgie, GNOME 3, MATE, LXDE, XFCE, etc.) of desktops that would want that functionality? It's another anti-cooperative move on the behalf of GNOME's development team, which is why it's no wonder that the rest of the community has abandoned the prospect of working with them. I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here, all those other desktops do already have their own way they implemented app indicators. For GNOME it is available via an extension. There is nothing anti-cooperative about this and nothing was abandoned. >Wayland simply isn't complete. The vast majority of desktop applications run worse on it. I despise x11 for being as crusty and stiff as it is, but I can run it on all of my systems without any problems. I can't do that with Wayland, and until I can, I have no reason to switch. x11 is superior for my workflow, full stop. There's no appeal to use it when only one or two of my computers actually run it well, and the rest have horrible showstopping bugs. I don't think this matters much, most of them are very small niche projects in the already small Linux niche. If you found bugs then report them, there is no other way they get fixed. Staying on x11 forever is not a viable option. Wayland probably won't ever be complete, but x11 is both incomplete and abandoned.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  I feel like there was a real failure to engage here, which is a shame because hating both of these window servers is something that I could do all day. However, I'll leave you with this: > Staying on x11 forever is not a viable option. "Staying on GTK2 forever is not a viable option." "Staying on GTK3 forever is not a viable option." "Using native packaging forever is not a viable option." "Using Linux kernel v4.19 forever is not a viable option." I wonder how many times I've heard this mantra repeated before...
  - Crysstalis 4y ago