3 ms·

>>They're figuring out how to extend Wayland to something usable that supports screenshots. Anything that supports plain Wayland is going to be crippled by the

>>They're figuring out how to extend Wayland to something usable that supports screenshots. Anything that supports plain Wayland is going to be crippled by the protocol limitations, but anything implementing a selection of the extension protocols will be useful. Dude please. Wayland has been 100 percent usable FOR ME for years. Plain Wayland is not "crippled" for MY use case. It may be crippled for YOUR use case, and that's a legitimate concern, but don't broad brush Wayland as not usable and crippled in general. For many of us it's already where it needs to be. That said, I do hope those remaining things get sorted out soon.

roenxi 3y ago
Compositors that don't support Wayland protocol extensions are in a tough spot. They are likely on the road to being seen as toy implementations for aforementioned reasons. The de-facto Wayland standard is not going to be the core protocol, in the same way that the core X protocol is woefully insufficient [0] for actually running a modern linux system. It needs extensions. The core protocol just isn't featureful enough - as has been clearly demonstrated by a decade lost in the woods not supporting basic desktop functionality. If a design goal was to delay adoption by 10-15 years while they think about things then I suppose it could be considered a success. Other systems have managed to move much faster than that without doing much harm. The sticking point is that at least the core X protocol didn't need a decade of R&D for a screenshot extension [1]. I suppose people could claim with a straight face that screenshots and streaming are unforeseen use cases, but they would be excellent poker players. It was a design mistake not to explicitly address that up front. An honest one, made by very competent people, but nevertheless a mis-step. [0] https://wiki.gnome.org/GraphicsRequirements https://wiki.gnome.org/GraphicsRequirements [1] I'll admit this is before my time - maybe it did? But the X protocol is a hot mess and Wayland is inching towards the point where it's release is closer to the birth of X windows than the present day.

roenxi 3y ago

Compositors that don't support Wayland protocol extensions are in a tough spot. They are likely on the road to being seen as toy implementations for aforementioned reasons. The de-facto Wayland standard is not going to be the core protocol, in the same way that the core X protocol is woefully insufficient [0] for actually running a modern linux system. It needs extensions. The core protocol just isn't featureful enough - as has been clearly demonstrated by a decade lost in the woods not supporting basic desktop functionality. If a design goal was to delay adoption by 10-15 years while they think about things then I suppose it could be considered a success. Other systems have managed to move much faster than that without doing much harm. The sticking point is that at least the core X protocol didn't need a decade of R&D for a screenshot extension [1]. I suppose people could claim with a straight face that screenshots and streaming are unforeseen use cases, but they would be excellent poker players. It was a design mistake not to explicitly address that up front. An honest one, made by very competent people, but nevertheless a mis-step. [0] https://wiki.gnome.org/GraphicsRequirements https://wiki.gnome.org/GraphicsRequirements [1] I'll admit this is before my time - maybe it did? But the X protocol is a hot mess and Wayland is inching towards the point where it's release is closer to the birth of X windows than the present day.