3 ms·

Well, that would imply that it's not a Wayland issue but a compositor. Or is all maths broken because I found a calculator that doesn't have a working addition

Well, that would imply that it's not a Wayland issue but a compositor. Or is all maths broken because I found a calculator that doesn't have a working addition key?

orbital-decay 3y ago
It's more like replacing an old calculator with a new shiny graphing one that can solve ODEs but the basic addition is declared "out of scope" so it doesn't have it. Well, now you need another calculator to add numbers built into your toaster, with every vendor implementing it differently.
mrighele 3y ago
The issue is that Wayland developers decided that a working addition key was not a core feature of a calculator.
- diffeomorphism 3y ago
  Which makes sense for cars, infotainment etc.. Depending on the use case you have in mind "core feature" can mean very different things.
didntcheck 3y ago
But why is my window manager now also my display server? The (relatively simple) program that decides how to lay out my windows is clearly a separate concern to the (complex) program that actually interfaces with the GPU to render the screen Having to worry if your WM supports your GPU is like having to worry if your web browser supports your NIC
- kaba0 3y ago
  Gnome is not your window manager - it’s your display server. You can trivially install/write an extension to manage your windows differently and reuse everything gnome provides for example. A wm has always been trivial compared to a display manager, people just mistake one for the other.
  - j16sdiz 3y ago
    I still think having multiple display server implementation is a mistake. Qt/KDE is lagging behind and there are no easy way for them to catch up. Had the display server been a single implementation, Qt/KDE can focus on WM/Widget..
    - happymellon 3y ago
      But that's KDEs fault. They want to have everything built in-house, they could join forces with Sway/WLRoots but when approached they declined. I am fine with having multiple implementations, we don't want to get stuck with a defacto standard, but don't blaming KDEs choices on Wayland.
    - kaba0 3y ago
      It’s not ideal, but what is the alternative? We couldn’t even agree about an implementation language, and there are many more decisions that are display-server specific. Wlroots is there for those who wants it and can agree with its design tradeoffs and it is used by plenty niche wms, so I think we have it as good as is feasible in a bazaar style, “everyone works on what they like” fashion. Without a higher power to spearhead a single project there can’t really be a difference.
  - didntcheck 3y ago
    Yes that's the point I'm making. It is now a display server. On X it was just a desktop environment. Traditionally that comprises * A set of utility X applications, like a panel and launcher * A recommended window manager * A recommended display manager And then this all runs on top of a separate X display server Generally the last two are easy to replace, for example I have used both Compiz and Xmonad on Gnome 2 and XFCE. Gnome was probably a bad example for me to pick since modern Gnome does merge the first two bullets into one, but it's still separate from the display server and can be launched from other display managers, or none (just startx) Again, it would be like Firefox needing to talk directly to my network card rather than the actual packet sending be managed by the layer below (the OS in that case)
    - 3y ago
lmm 3y ago
If one calculator model agrees with your answer and every other calculator model doesn't, I wouldn't have a lot of faith in that answer.
- happymellon 3y ago
  There is only one that doesn't agree with my answer. It's also historically the one that have been generally buggy, even when running under X. They don't have the financial backing that Gnome does, but doesn't accept itself as a smaller project.

Well, that would imply that it's not a Wayland issue but a compositor. Or is all maths broken because I found a calculator that doesn't have a working addition key?

orbital-decay 3y ago

It's more like replacing an old calculator with a new shiny graphing one that can solve ODEs but the basic addition is declared "out of scope" so it doesn't have it. Well, now you need another calculator to add numbers built into your toaster, with every vendor implementing it differently.

mrighele 3y ago

The issue is that Wayland developers decided that a working addition key was not a core feature of a calculator.

diffeomorphism 3y ago
Which makes sense for cars, infotainment etc.. Depending on the use case you have in mind "core feature" can mean very different things.

didntcheck 3y ago

But why is my window manager now also my display server? The (relatively simple) program that decides how to lay out my windows is clearly a separate concern to the (complex) program that actually interfaces with the GPU to render the screen Having to worry if your WM supports your GPU is like having to worry if your web browser supports your NIC

kaba0 3y ago
Gnome is not your window manager - it’s your display server. You can trivially install/write an extension to manage your windows differently and reuse everything gnome provides for example. A wm has always been trivial compared to a display manager, people just mistake one for the other.
- j16sdiz 3y ago
  I still think having multiple display server implementation is a mistake. Qt/KDE is lagging behind and there are no easy way for them to catch up. Had the display server been a single implementation, Qt/KDE can focus on WM/Widget..
  - happymellon 3y ago
    But that's KDEs fault. They want to have everything built in-house, they could join forces with Sway/WLRoots but when approached they declined. I am fine with having multiple implementations, we don't want to get stuck with a defacto standard, but don't blaming KDEs choices on Wayland.
  - kaba0 3y ago
    It’s not ideal, but what is the alternative? We couldn’t even agree about an implementation language, and there are many more decisions that are display-server specific. Wlroots is there for those who wants it and can agree with its design tradeoffs and it is used by plenty niche wms, so I think we have it as good as is feasible in a bazaar style, “everyone works on what they like” fashion. Without a higher power to spearhead a single project there can’t really be a difference.
- didntcheck 3y ago
  Yes that's the point I'm making. It is now a display server. On X it was just a desktop environment. Traditionally that comprises * A set of utility X applications, like a panel and launcher * A recommended window manager * A recommended display manager And then this all runs on top of a separate X display server Generally the last two are easy to replace, for example I have used both Compiz and Xmonad on Gnome 2 and XFCE. Gnome was probably a bad example for me to pick since modern Gnome does merge the first two bullets into one, but it's still separate from the display server and can be launched from other display managers, or none (just startx) Again, it would be like Firefox needing to talk directly to my network card rather than the actual packet sending be managed by the layer below (the OS in that case)
  - 3y ago

lmm 3y ago

If one calculator model agrees with your answer and every other calculator model doesn't, I wouldn't have a lot of faith in that answer.

happymellon 3y ago
There is only one that doesn't agree with my answer. It's also historically the one that have been generally buggy, even when running under X. They don't have the financial backing that Gnome does, but doesn't accept itself as a smaller project.