4 ms·

Do you have xdg-desktop-portal-gnome installed? Screen-sharing is working out of the box for me on both gnome and wlroots. File a bug to your distro maintainer

Do you have xdg-desktop-portal-gnome installed? Screen-sharing is working out of the box for me on both gnome and wlroots. File a bug to your distro maintainers if it doesn't.

Silhouette 4y ago
I have a standard, regularly updated Ubuntu 22.04. I do appreciate your response but ironically you're also demonstrating exactly the point I was trying to make. As long as I have to worry about installing x-y-z-beta (but make sure it's the one from two weeks ago because last week's had a regression) to make essential basic functionality work we aren't really talking about a serious offering for normal users. In reality like almost every other Ubuntu user I've talked to in real life about this I just switch back to X if I need to screen share. And if that stops working I'll switch from Ubuntu to something that does. Like building my own PC with micro-optimised component choices, tweaking Linux system software was interesting for a while and sometimes got great results, but life's too short to keep doing that forever. Now I just want something that does its job.
- binarysneaker 4y ago
  Change takes time. There's always Windows... /s
  - Silhouette 4y ago
    Change takes time. Of course it does. My argument is that for many users Wayland's time has not yet come. The kind of very noticeable issues some of us have mentioned in this discussion need to be fixed so things work normally as standard before that will really happen.
    - kaba0 4y ago
      The thing is that with bazaar-style development there is no other way to solve it. Wayland either lingers in the background indefinitely, or it gets “pushed” in a good-enough state, “forcing” misbehaving apps to fix themselves. OSX and Windows can just say “we are using W from version V” and you loose business if you don’t update. There is only popularity as a incentive on a FOSS platform.
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  The fix is installing the appropriate app or participating in your distro to get it automatically fixed. If you can't be bothered to do anything but rage quit when you don't get your way you'd be better off on Mac.
  - Silhouette 4y ago
    If you can't be bothered to do anything but rage quit when you don't get your way you'd be better off on Mac. The problem with this argument is that it's almost certainly true. If you are a fan of Linux and hoping for it to gain market share and by extension grow the ecosystem for everyone that is not good news.
- cowtools 4y ago
  >In reality like almost every other Ubuntu user I've talked to in real life [...] It doesn't matter if "most linux users" contribute or not. Only a minority report bugs, and an even smaller minority fix bugs. There is an old saying that if you want something done right... well, let's not be cynical. Let's just be grateful that we have the opportunity to do things right!
smoldesu 4y ago
Part of the problem, as I understand it, is that the onus is now on each individual desktop environment to provide it's own implementation of screensharing. If Wayland made this an optional, standardized feature, maybe downloading packages and checking with our distro maintainers wouldn't be a part of this. Overall, this is one of the big architectural things that is horribly wrong with Wayland. Not offering a "batteries-included" path for everyone still using legacy systems is going to destroy adoption rates once you start looking outside the hobbyist crowd and towards enterprise/LTS markets. I get why you'd want to keep these components separate, but there's really no point now. Nobody is using this code as a module, they're simply re-implementing the same thing into different desktops over-and-over again. It's one of those rare moments where Xorg's monolithic codebase isn't a detriment, for once.
- cowtools 4y ago
  I'm not sure I completely agree. You have a middleground where smaller DEs (wayfire, sway, etc.) huddle around larger "hub" implementations of wayland like wlroots in the same way that X11 DEs used Xorg. It's really only the larger DEs that will want to roll their own compositor like GNOME/mutter. Wayland allows them to do that in a feasible way, but it doesn't force them to because they can use something like wlroots.
  - nsajko 4y ago
    The information you present is completely consistent with what smoldesu said.
    - cowtools 4y ago
      Maybe I should be more specific: >the onus is now on each individual desktop environment to provide it's own implementation of screensharing wlroots-based DEs can simply use wlroots' screen-sharing implementation for example. The wayland equivalent to the smaller DEs that relied on Xorg to reduce their complexity and maintenance is just smaller DEs using wlroots or similar. The larger DEs like Gnome and KDE will have no problem bearing the onus of implementing wayland themselves. I've had it screen sharing working perfectly on gnome for the better part of a year already.

Do you have xdg-desktop-portal-gnome installed? Screen-sharing is working out of the box for me on both gnome and wlroots. File a bug to your distro maintainers if it doesn't.

Silhouette 4y ago

I have a standard, regularly updated Ubuntu 22.04. I do appreciate your response but ironically you're also demonstrating exactly the point I was trying to make. As long as I have to worry about installing x-y-z-beta (but make sure it's the one from two weeks ago because last week's had a regression) to make essential basic functionality work we aren't really talking about a serious offering for normal users. In reality like almost every other Ubuntu user I've talked to in real life about this I just switch back to X if I need to screen share. And if that stops working I'll switch from Ubuntu to something that does. Like building my own PC with micro-optimised component choices, tweaking Linux system software was interesting for a while and sometimes got great results, but life's too short to keep doing that forever. Now I just want something that does its job.

binarysneaker 4y ago
Change takes time. There's always Windows... /s
- Silhouette 4y ago
  Change takes time. Of course it does. My argument is that for many users Wayland's time has not yet come. The kind of very noticeable issues some of us have mentioned in this discussion need to be fixed so things work normally as standard before that will really happen.
  - kaba0 4y ago
    The thing is that with bazaar-style development there is no other way to solve it. Wayland either lingers in the background indefinitely, or it gets “pushed” in a good-enough state, “forcing” misbehaving apps to fix themselves. OSX and Windows can just say “we are using W from version V” and you loose business if you don’t update. There is only popularity as a incentive on a FOSS platform.
encryptluks2 4y ago
The fix is installing the appropriate app or participating in your distro to get it automatically fixed. If you can't be bothered to do anything but rage quit when you don't get your way you'd be better off on Mac.
- Silhouette 4y ago
  If you can't be bothered to do anything but rage quit when you don't get your way you'd be better off on Mac. The problem with this argument is that it's almost certainly true. If you are a fan of Linux and hoping for it to gain market share and by extension grow the ecosystem for everyone that is not good news.
cowtools 4y ago
>In reality like almost every other Ubuntu user I've talked to in real life [...] It doesn't matter if "most linux users" contribute or not. Only a minority report bugs, and an even smaller minority fix bugs. There is an old saying that if you want something done right... well, let's not be cynical. Let's just be grateful that we have the opportunity to do things right!

smoldesu 4y ago

Part of the problem, as I understand it, is that the onus is now on each individual desktop environment to provide it's own implementation of screensharing. If Wayland made this an optional, standardized feature, maybe downloading packages and checking with our distro maintainers wouldn't be a part of this. Overall, this is one of the big architectural things that is horribly wrong with Wayland. Not offering a "batteries-included" path for everyone still using legacy systems is going to destroy adoption rates once you start looking outside the hobbyist crowd and towards enterprise/LTS markets. I get why you'd want to keep these components separate, but there's really no point now. Nobody is using this code as a module, they're simply re-implementing the same thing into different desktops over-and-over again. It's one of those rare moments where Xorg's monolithic codebase isn't a detriment, for once.

cowtools 4y ago
I'm not sure I completely agree. You have a middleground where smaller DEs (wayfire, sway, etc.) huddle around larger "hub" implementations of wayland like wlroots in the same way that X11 DEs used Xorg. It's really only the larger DEs that will want to roll their own compositor like GNOME/mutter. Wayland allows them to do that in a feasible way, but it doesn't force them to because they can use something like wlroots.
- nsajko 4y ago
  The information you present is completely consistent with what smoldesu said.
  - cowtools 4y ago
    Maybe I should be more specific: >the onus is now on each individual desktop environment to provide it's own implementation of screensharing wlroots-based DEs can simply use wlroots' screen-sharing implementation for example. The wayland equivalent to the smaller DEs that relied on Xorg to reduce their complexity and maintenance is just smaller DEs using wlroots or similar. The larger DEs like Gnome and KDE will have no problem bearing the onus of implementing wayland themselves. I've had it screen sharing working perfectly on gnome for the better part of a year already.