4 ms·

Sort of. The foundational issue here is the longstanding premise "Wayland can replace X!". The problem is that Wayland can't replace X, only Wayland plus a bunc

Sort of. The foundational issue here is the longstanding premise "Wayland can replace X!". The problem is that Wayland can't replace X, only Wayland plus a bunch of other components - or as I like to call it, Wayland++. So Wayland++ can provide network transparency, but whenever a W++ feature has issues and those issues are criticized, Wayland advocates will just motte-and-bailey the issue by saying "but that's not part of Wayland!", which is technically true but irrelevant. "Wayland" can mean Wayland++ or just Wayland-core, depending on what's convenient.

j16sdiz 3y ago
outsourcing the responsibility that is.
- dathinab 3y ago
  not putting complexity into places it doesn't belong to leading to sub-par outcomes for everyone that is
  - wing-_-nuts 3y ago
    bah. the sub-par outcome is they broke compatibility with everyone and then claimed it was every man / DE for themselves.
    - dathinab 3y ago
      x11 was (development) dead long before wayland was relevant x11 had long time become unsustainable in multiple ways braking changes where inevitable all of the most relevant DE had somewhat already gutted out X11 leaving nothing behind then the interfaces so the replacement being defined by interfaces and "every DE for themself" was just natural, for the large DEs it was already the case anyway and for the other DEs you could say wlroot is now the common core they need because they don't have the will/time to implement everything by themself
dale_glass 3y ago
Wayland proper is a protocol specification. By it itself, it's completely inert and it's all up to an implementation. The protocol uses shared memory buffers and file descriptors, so it can't be just transported through TCP as-is. You need something like waypipe, which parses part of the protocol, extracts things like file descriptors that won't make sense on the other end, and then reconstructs things on the destination. waypipe turns out not to be that complicated, it's just 15K lines of code.
- wing-_-nuts 3y ago
  >Wayland proper is a protocol specification. By it itself, it's completely inert and it's all up to an implementation. Wayland should have shipped with a default implementation that had screen sharing, recording, clipboard and everything else that x11 had by default. The fact that they've thrown all that responsibility on DEs without so much as a HOWTO on how to reach parity is ridiculous. I will never understand why anyone took their effort seriously.
  - mariusor 3y ago
    > The fact that they've thrown all that responsibility on DEs without so much as a HOWTO on how to reach parity is ridiculous. Well, all DEs (excepting maybe Xfce?) have members in the work groups that design the wayland protocol extensions, so it can be assumed that people are well aware of what needs to be done. Wayland has a default implementation called Weston, but I'm not sure that any of its devs cared enough to implement the extensions which are responsible for all the other bits that you mentioned.
- somat 3y ago
  X11 is just a protocol specification. By it itself, it's completely inert and it's all up to an implementation.

j16sdiz 3y ago

outsourcing the responsibility that is.

dathinab 3y ago
not putting complexity into places it doesn't belong to leading to sub-par outcomes for everyone that is
- wing-_-nuts 3y ago
  bah. the sub-par outcome is they broke compatibility with everyone and then claimed it was every man / DE for themselves.
  - dathinab 3y ago
    x11 was (development) dead long before wayland was relevant x11 had long time become unsustainable in multiple ways braking changes where inevitable all of the most relevant DE had somewhat already gutted out X11 leaving nothing behind then the interfaces so the replacement being defined by interfaces and "every DE for themself" was just natural, for the large DEs it was already the case anyway and for the other DEs you could say wlroot is now the common core they need because they don't have the will/time to implement everything by themself

dale_glass 3y ago

Wayland proper is a protocol specification. By it itself, it's completely inert and it's all up to an implementation. The protocol uses shared memory buffers and file descriptors, so it can't be just transported through TCP as-is. You need something like waypipe, which parses part of the protocol, extracts things like file descriptors that won't make sense on the other end, and then reconstructs things on the destination. waypipe turns out not to be that complicated, it's just 15K lines of code.

wing-_-nuts 3y ago
>Wayland proper is a protocol specification. By it itself, it's completely inert and it's all up to an implementation. Wayland should have shipped with a default implementation that had screen sharing, recording, clipboard and everything else that x11 had by default. The fact that they've thrown all that responsibility on DEs without so much as a HOWTO on how to reach parity is ridiculous. I will never understand why anyone took their effort seriously.
- mariusor 3y ago
  > The fact that they've thrown all that responsibility on DEs without so much as a HOWTO on how to reach parity is ridiculous. Well, all DEs (excepting maybe Xfce?) have members in the work groups that design the wayland protocol extensions, so it can be assumed that people are well aware of what needs to be done. Wayland has a default implementation called Weston, but I'm not sure that any of its devs cared enough to implement the extensions which are responsible for all the other bits that you mentioned.
somat 3y ago
X11 is just a protocol specification. By it itself, it's completely inert and it's all up to an implementation.