4 ms·

>Then plan for it, architecturally, so that you can add or enable these features later on, or when you need it. Start with something sensible, appropriate for r

>Then plan for it, architecturally, so that you can add or enable these features later on, or when you need it. Start with something sensible, appropriate for real-world usage. This is exactly what Wayland has done though. Few have a reason to run command line tools to change the screen configuration, real world usage is to use a GUI as is common on every other graphical OS. >You can pass resolution, refresh rate, position and orientation via command line in a simple and understandable way. A major problem here is because of the way the API works, technically any X11 client can do that at any time. The tool may seem trivial but the way it is implemented has great potential for misuse. It does not even have to be malware for this to cause problems, for example a typo in a random script could seriously screw up your screen. Or another common problem in X11 is with applications setting the resolution to something weird, crashing and then leaving the screen in a weird state. >This completely confirms second system syndrome. It's only as complicated and non-trivial as you want it to be. I can only imagine what kind of convoluted security nonsense you think of when you say "the right way". Ask the display server for a list of screens and supported resolutions, and then tell it what you want to do with those. If this was second system syndrome, then it would be in the kernel, not in X or Wayland. Because the kernel is where all the new KMS features happened. Again, the display server is not actually driving this feature. They are relaying information to and from KMS, which is the actual API that configures the screen.

pmontra 4y ago
> Few have a reason to run command line tools to change the screen configuration, real world usage is to use a GUI as is common on every other graphical OS. But those few gravitate around OSes using X11. Any other graphical OS has way more users that use the computer they are given to perform the task they are given. No questions asked, no fiddling with settings. When you develop for people that use a system specifically because it allows fiddling, you must not take away functionality. If you do, prepare for criticisms.
- Crysstalis 4y ago
  But you can still fiddle. Unless I missed something, the only complaint here is that the method of fiddling has changed. And somehow, I doubt that even the most fervent of fiddlers really enjoy typing obscure command line incantations just to configure their laptop when they connect it to a projector.
  - drpyser22 4y ago
    Are you arguing against the value of a command line interface in the Linux world? Command line is appreciated because of its simplicity and composability. The ability to automate and integrate with a huge ecosystem of compatible tools. Is this really a debate still worth having?
    - Crysstalis 4y ago
      >The ability to automate and integrate with a huge ecosystem of compatible tools What you are thinking of is an API, not a command line interface. That still exists, and it can be used to build a command line interface. Command line interfaces by themselves are actually very poor for automation and integration, as they force you to do lots of unnecessary formatting and parsing in and out of text strings at every step. For graphical tasks such as this, the command line is indeed obsolete. The main usage for remaining with the command line in modern times is for manual administration of a remote server, but that is not relevant here as the whole problem space is about administering the local machine as a GUI.
      - pmontra 4y ago
        I did document administrative procedures as click here, click there, check that box, click there again. I also document them as commands that can be copy / pasted, even on my laptop. I'd say that GUI administration of a local machine is nice for casual tssks, but a waste of time for repetitive tasks and when I feel that I might need to do it again in future. A command line is much more reproducible. It's dconf vs gsettings.
        4y ago
Amezarak 4y ago
> Or another common problem in X11 is with applications setting the resolution to something weird, crashing and then leaving the screen in a weird state. Common problem? I’ve never heard of this happening. I suppose hypothetically random applications could trash my X settings but in 20 years they haven’t. On Windows I have observed random applications do have this power and sometimes exercise it, but the worst it’s ever done is mess up my desktop icon arrangement, by some mechanism I know not the OS reverts the resolution change if the application crashes.
- Crysstalis 4y ago
  Sure, you may not have heard of it. But it is a thing that can happen and is not possible to fix without changing (i.e. breaking) the API. X11 does not have a mechanism to fix it, that was never added.

pmontra 4y ago

> Few have a reason to run command line tools to change the screen configuration, real world usage is to use a GUI as is common on every other graphical OS. But those few gravitate around OSes using X11. Any other graphical OS has way more users that use the computer they are given to perform the task they are given. No questions asked, no fiddling with settings. When you develop for people that use a system specifically because it allows fiddling, you must not take away functionality. If you do, prepare for criticisms.

Crysstalis 4y ago
But you can still fiddle. Unless I missed something, the only complaint here is that the method of fiddling has changed. And somehow, I doubt that even the most fervent of fiddlers really enjoy typing obscure command line incantations just to configure their laptop when they connect it to a projector.
- drpyser22 4y ago
  Are you arguing against the value of a command line interface in the Linux world? Command line is appreciated because of its simplicity and composability. The ability to automate and integrate with a huge ecosystem of compatible tools. Is this really a debate still worth having?
  - Crysstalis 4y ago
    >The ability to automate and integrate with a huge ecosystem of compatible tools What you are thinking of is an API, not a command line interface. That still exists, and it can be used to build a command line interface. Command line interfaces by themselves are actually very poor for automation and integration, as they force you to do lots of unnecessary formatting and parsing in and out of text strings at every step. For graphical tasks such as this, the command line is indeed obsolete. The main usage for remaining with the command line in modern times is for manual administration of a remote server, but that is not relevant here as the whole problem space is about administering the local machine as a GUI.
    - pmontra 4y ago
      I did document administrative procedures as click here, click there, check that box, click there again. I also document them as commands that can be copy / pasted, even on my laptop. I'd say that GUI administration of a local machine is nice for casual tssks, but a waste of time for repetitive tasks and when I feel that I might need to do it again in future. A command line is much more reproducible. It's dconf vs gsettings.
      - 4y ago

Amezarak 4y ago

> Or another common problem in X11 is with applications setting the resolution to something weird, crashing and then leaving the screen in a weird state. Common problem? I’ve never heard of this happening. I suppose hypothetically random applications could trash my X settings but in 20 years they haven’t. On Windows I have observed random applications do have this power and sometimes exercise it, but the worst it’s ever done is mess up my desktop icon arrangement, by some mechanism I know not the OS reverts the resolution change if the application crashes.

Crysstalis 4y ago
Sure, you may not have heard of it. But it is a thing that can happen and is not possible to fix without changing (i.e. breaking) the API. X11 does not have a mechanism to fix it, that was never added.