4 ms·

> You've been running a wayland, not wayland, because there is no "wayland": only many different waylands. I am aware, that is why I specified which compositor

> You've been running a wayland, not wayland, because there is no "wayland": only many different waylands. I am aware, that is why I specified which compositor I am running. The comment I replied to said (emphasis mine) "*Wayland* won't work well on non-Linux systems" which is clearly false. To put it into another context: only a subset of C programs run on windows, but it would be silly to claim C won't work on windows. As for the bug report you linked, the response seems quite reasonable: > We already have Wayland protocols for input emulation. I think libei should add support for those. Since standardized protocols exist, why should every compositor have to integrate this library instead of the library integrating support for the standardized protocols?

superkuh 3y ago
>support for the standardized protocols? What standardized protocol? Each wayland makes a different choice. That's the problem. And yeah, I guess I can't say this is a sway issue, their choice is reasonable enough. But it highlights how reasonable actions in a broken system like the waylands can cause problems. They're not doing anything "wrong" and neither are the waylands using libei (all the mouse/keyboard sharing programs target libei, maybe in the future some can target whatever sway comes up with). But it does lead to things not working across waylands. Whereas in X things do work no matter what X implementation you use.