4 ms·

FWIW all the reasons seem like an aversion to complying with how Wayland works. Yes, you can't position windows absolutely, but that's because you're not suppo

by Laaas 3y ago

FWIW all the reasons seem like an aversion to complying with how Wayland works. Yes, you can't position windows absolutely, but that's because you're not supposed to do that. In any case I don't see how being able to position windows is relevant at all to PCXS2's functioning on Wayland? Just don't position windows if you can't? It's an incredibly dumb reason not to support the protocol. Xorg is mostly unmaintained AFAIK. See https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland-protocols/-/merge_requests/247 https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland-protocols/-/m... for the discussion on this

fiddlerwoaroof 3y ago
One person’s unmaintained is another’s stable
asveikau 3y ago
> Yes, you can't position windows absolutely, but that's because you're not supposed to do that. I think about 40 years of GUI APIs disagree with this.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  40 years ago people did not care about malicous applications, nor did they care about jank, nor did they have the hindsights that we do know. Those API only still exist because of backwards compatibility.
  - Ferret7446 3y ago
    If you're running malicious applications, you're already fucked, and your compositor pretending to protect you is the last thing you need.
  - Lammy 3y ago
    I also don't care about malicious applications. I don't need to be protected from myself and didn't ask anyone to try.
    - fiddlerwoaroof 3y ago
      Yeah, I find the creep of web app security mentality into the desktop to be a disaster. I want to be able to easily snoop on and control my GUI and I absolutely don’t want some display system to decide it knows better than me about this sort of thing.
      - charcircuit 3y ago
        >web app security mentality Having good security is essential to having a good app platform. You can see a real disaster in how malware operated on Windows a couple decades ago. >I want to be able to easily snoop on and control my GUI That don't mean that every random program needs to be able to. If a program is to be able to snoop, it needs to explicitly given the ability to do so.
        fiddlerwoaroof 3y ago
        > That don't mean that every random program needs to be able to. If a program is to be able to snoop, it needs to explicitly given the ability to do so. I strongly disagree with this, this is how you get inconsistent, annoying computing experiences
      - dzaima 3y ago
        I'd perhaps say that security can be a good idea, but it needs to be done well for it to be so. And not at all implementing a potentially-abusable feature, while counting as "secure", is absolutely not doing it well.
      - mcpackieh 3y ago
        I think it's coming from developers with proprietary backgrounds who want to normalize the running of untrusted proprietary software on the Linux desktop, probably from some appstore with abysmal quality standards like Android and iOS. Contrast this mentality with sticking to Free software you downloaded from the official Debian repos.. why do I need to be protected against that software? I don't. These mobile-like desktop protection schemes are designed to facilitate mobile-like software consumption habits. Fuck all of that!
  - asveikau 3y ago
    Maliciousness like wanting to open a window at a given location? That's seriously bad behavior and I hope the offenders will be stopped promptly and prosecuted. I didn't think evil like this existed in the world.
    - charcircuit 3y ago
      No, maliciousness like having a window move itself high enough that the close button is off screen or malicousness like the window dancing around, potentially causing other windows to also be noted around as the window manager responds. Yes, these can be somewhat mitigated by the window manager but the fact that every window manager will need to think carefully about the security of this hints that the design of the protocol is exposing a bad abstraction or interface.
ryandrake 3y ago
> Yes, you can't position windows absolutely, but that's because you're not supposed to do that. Why not? This seems like a pretty opinionated policy from something that's supposed to be a platform to enable applications. Why should some other developer dictate how an application should work? I'd expect "My way or the highway" from Apple, but not from a linux API.
- Arnavion 3y ago
  It's more nuanced than "should be able to do it" and "shouldn't be able to do it". The problem is covered in the wayland-protocols MR that the PCSX2 PR author also linked to (and failed to appreciate): https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland-protocols/-/merge_requests/247#note_2105263 https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland-protocols/-/m...
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    Thanks for the extra context. I don't have a dog in this particular race, but I think, as a developer, I'd look at that list of excuses and just say "Why bother, I'll just target X and get on with my life." The great thing about Linux is there's usually at least one other alternative for basically anything you want to do!
  - marcus0x62 3y ago
    I don’t think anyone “failed to appreciate” that thread. The core reasoning on the part of the Wayland devs was absurd beyond belief. “Applications and users decide what's actually optional - if 10 applications work on all the popular compositors but don't work in one with a novel approach to window management, then that compositor is considered broken, not the applications.” So, the obvious solution to the problem is, apparently, to have no solution and have everything broken. Genius.
kcb 3y ago
Even if X11 goes away XWayland will be around.
stefan_ 3y ago
That thread is a fantastic reason to never run wayland.
- accelbred 3y ago
  That thread increases my trust in the Wayland developers significantly.
gsich 3y ago
Users who need this will disagree.
dzaima 3y ago
> FWIW all the reasons seem like an aversion to complying with how Wayland works. The absolute last thing you should want from a platform is to have to "comply" with its weird decisions and assumptions on what people will or won't want to do (especially when people clearly do want and already are doing said things). > In any case I don't see how being able to position windows is relevant at all to PCXS2's functioning on Wayland? Just don't position windows if you can't? Cause users expect it to happen and complain when it doesn't anyway: https://github.com/PCSX2/pcsx2/issues/9064 https://github.com/PCSX2/pcsx2/issues/9064, https://github.com/PCSX2/pcsx2/issues/10065 https://github.com/PCSX2/pcsx2/issues/10065 From a user point-of-view Wayland is perhaps at a level of nitpicks of problems to some extent (haven't used it myself), but from a developer point-of-view it's, plain and simply, incomplete, with its refusal to support trivial things possible on X11 & Windows & macOS (i.e. everything else). (not a PCSX2 user/dev, just searched for the issues; for reference, I've had the displeasure of writing code directly interfacing with X11 and so wish death to X11 as soon as possible, but wayland's still a horribly-opinionated mess)

by Laaas 3y ago

fiddlerwoaroof 3y ago

One person’s unmaintained is another’s stable

asveikau 3y ago

> Yes, you can't position windows absolutely, but that's because you're not supposed to do that. I think about 40 years of GUI APIs disagree with this.

charcircuit 3y ago
40 years ago people did not care about malicous applications, nor did they care about jank, nor did they have the hindsights that we do know. Those API only still exist because of backwards compatibility.
- Ferret7446 3y ago
  If you're running malicious applications, you're already fucked, and your compositor pretending to protect you is the last thing you need.
- Lammy 3y ago
  I also don't care about malicious applications. I don't need to be protected from myself and didn't ask anyone to try.
  - fiddlerwoaroof 3y ago
    Yeah, I find the creep of web app security mentality into the desktop to be a disaster. I want to be able to easily snoop on and control my GUI and I absolutely don’t want some display system to decide it knows better than me about this sort of thing.
    - charcircuit 3y ago
      >web app security mentality Having good security is essential to having a good app platform. You can see a real disaster in how malware operated on Windows a couple decades ago. >I want to be able to easily snoop on and control my GUI That don't mean that every random program needs to be able to. If a program is to be able to snoop, it needs to explicitly given the ability to do so.
      - fiddlerwoaroof 3y ago
        > That don't mean that every random program needs to be able to. If a program is to be able to snoop, it needs to explicitly given the ability to do so. I strongly disagree with this, this is how you get inconsistent, annoying computing experiences
    - dzaima 3y ago
      I'd perhaps say that security can be a good idea, but it needs to be done well for it to be so. And not at all implementing a potentially-abusable feature, while counting as "secure", is absolutely not doing it well.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      I think it's coming from developers with proprietary backgrounds who want to normalize the running of untrusted proprietary software on the Linux desktop, probably from some appstore with abysmal quality standards like Android and iOS. Contrast this mentality with sticking to Free software you downloaded from the official Debian repos.. why do I need to be protected against that software? I don't. These mobile-like desktop protection schemes are designed to facilitate mobile-like software consumption habits. Fuck all of that!
- asveikau 3y ago
  Maliciousness like wanting to open a window at a given location? That's seriously bad behavior and I hope the offenders will be stopped promptly and prosecuted. I didn't think evil like this existed in the world.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    No, maliciousness like having a window move itself high enough that the close button is off screen or malicousness like the window dancing around, potentially causing other windows to also be noted around as the window manager responds. Yes, these can be somewhat mitigated by the window manager but the fact that every window manager will need to think carefully about the security of this hints that the design of the protocol is exposing a bad abstraction or interface.

ryandrake 3y ago

> Yes, you can't position windows absolutely, but that's because you're not supposed to do that. Why not? This seems like a pretty opinionated policy from something that's supposed to be a platform to enable applications. Why should some other developer dictate how an application should work? I'd expect "My way or the highway" from Apple, but not from a linux API.

Arnavion 3y ago
It's more nuanced than "should be able to do it" and "shouldn't be able to do it". The problem is covered in the wayland-protocols MR that the PCSX2 PR author also linked to (and failed to appreciate): https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland-protocols/-/merge_requests/247#note_2105263 https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland-protocols/-/m...
- ryandrake 3y ago
  Thanks for the extra context. I don't have a dog in this particular race, but I think, as a developer, I'd look at that list of excuses and just say "Why bother, I'll just target X and get on with my life." The great thing about Linux is there's usually at least one other alternative for basically anything you want to do!
- marcus0x62 3y ago
  I don’t think anyone “failed to appreciate” that thread. The core reasoning on the part of the Wayland devs was absurd beyond belief. “Applications and users decide what's actually optional - if 10 applications work on all the popular compositors but don't work in one with a novel approach to window management, then that compositor is considered broken, not the applications.” So, the obvious solution to the problem is, apparently, to have no solution and have everything broken. Genius.

kcb 3y ago

Even if X11 goes away XWayland will be around.

stefan_ 3y ago

That thread is a fantastic reason to never run wayland.

accelbred 3y ago
That thread increases my trust in the Wayland developers significantly.

gsich 3y ago

Users who need this will disagree.

dzaima 3y ago

> FWIW all the reasons seem like an aversion to complying with how Wayland works. The absolute last thing you should want from a platform is to have to "comply" with its weird decisions and assumptions on what people will or won't want to do (especially when people clearly do want and already are doing said things). > In any case I don't see how being able to position windows is relevant at all to PCXS2's functioning on Wayland? Just don't position windows if you can't? Cause users expect it to happen and complain when it doesn't anyway: https://github.com/PCSX2/pcsx2/issues/9064 https://github.com/PCSX2/pcsx2/issues/9064, https://github.com/PCSX2/pcsx2/issues/10065 https://github.com/PCSX2/pcsx2/issues/10065 From a user point-of-view Wayland is perhaps at a level of nitpicks of problems to some extent (haven't used it myself), but from a developer point-of-view it's, plain and simply, incomplete, with its refusal to support trivial things possible on X11 & Windows & macOS (i.e. everything else). (not a PCSX2 user/dev, just searched for the issues; for reference, I've had the displeasure of writing code directly interfacing with X11 and so wish death to X11 as soon as possible, but wayland's still a horribly-opinionated mess)