3 ms·

The article does not explain how Wayland breaks bad software? > X11 is, to put it simply, not at all fit for any modern system. Full stop. Everything to make i

The article does not explain how Wayland breaks bad software? > X11 is, to put it simply, not at all fit for any modern system. Full stop. Everything to make it work on modern systems are just hacks. Don’t even try to get away with “well, it just works for me” or “but Wayland no worky”. Unless your workflow (and hardware) comes from 20+ years ago, you have almost no reason to stick with Xorg, especially as it continues to get worse and worse when the user experience relies on newer and newer features. This is not a great way to start an article. You are not going to convince any "it works for me" person to try out Wayland with this attitude. I'll say it: X works for me, what's wrong with my 20 year old workflow? > Xorg, from the very beginning, only ever had to deal with one display. It did originate from around the 1980s, after all. Having more than one display wasn’t even a thought in their mind, let alone ones with different resolutions and scales. The official docs even consider a “Display” to be the entire Xorg server, with all of its screens combined. This paragraph seems to imply that X does not work with multiple displays, but I have never had issues with those. I have nothing against Wayland and I think there are good arguments in favor of it in this article, but they are presented in a bad way. The author seems mad at users for... Not wanting to change a working setup? Do they not realize that most people only care about windows being shown, and not about how messy the internals are? Sorry, not sorry. It works for me.

orthecreedence 3y ago
> This paragraph seems to imply that X does not work with multiple displays, but I have never had issues with those. I had issues with it, and it's honestly the main reason I switched to Wayland. And while I don't regret that decision, I live in constant annoyance of all the little things that used to work but just don't now. Wayland and/or its implementations are just not feature complete, and in many cases are a step backwards in UX. I think it's great people stay on X. I wish I could have.
- saurik 3y ago
  Maybe it is merely a documentation issue? I keep hearing stories on the one hand of people (such as yourself) who say they failed to get X working with multiple displays... and yet, a ton of software seems to exist predicated on the notion of working with multiple displays (even i3) and a number of actual users claim to have multiple displays working. https://ptgamr.notion.site/xrand-4k-mixed-monitors-7a026e5345994267aebfa01a32044a2f https://ptgamr.notion.site/xrand-4k-mixed-monitors-7a026e534... ^ maybe this would be useful? This seems like a pretty simple single run of xrandr that configures multiple (three, even) monitors on X all at different resolutions and ending up at different display scaling (including one fractional scaling). Like, looking at this, I feel as if I should be able to get this working myself, were I to have multiple monitors (I don't on my Linux laptop). FWIW, I love the idea of helping someone not be sad about having to switch to Wayland by getting them back on X with all of their happy software working, and so if you want to try to debug whatever your issue was together, I'm game. To me, what makes Linux fun is all of the random combinations and hacking we can do together, and it just seems like people are both losing that ethos and even saying we are wrong for enjoying it, and that makes me a bit demoralized :(.
  - sspiff 3y ago
    Multiple displays work on X11 by having one big canvas/virtual display, and having each monitor show the contents of a part of that canvas. There are some restrictions because of this. One is that per display scaling is unsupported in the worst case, or a hack in the best case. Another is that the virtual display is always a rectangle, meaning that if you have different resolution displays, you end up with some parts of the canvas not being displayed anywhere. Most window managers and desktop environments know not to place window contents or UI chrome there (like panels), but the space is still there, and you can see this when using screenshot utilities which simply write the whole canvas to a file. Your mouse pointer can also hide in these invisible sections. Getting X11 to display content on video outputs located on different video cards from different vendors can sometimes feel like a dark art, but other than that it mostly just works.
    - saurik 3y ago
      1) FWIW, I understood that, given the xrandr explainer that I linked, which was clearly doing all of that ;P. 2) Regardless, the person I'm replying to was using i3 (and is now using Sway), so I'm thinking that a lot of these limitations don't matter much? I mean, with i3 you aren't even going to ever have a window crossing the boundary between two monitors much less ending up off-screen somewhere. 3) I use a ton of random monitors at wildly different resolutions on Windows and frankly it's the same thing: there is a conceptual bounding rectangle for all of the monitors and you can absolutely have Windows hanging off the edge of monitors; also: I don't know how you expect anything to support non-rectangular screenshots so all of my screenshots on Windows--as well as my VNC servers--all have the same behavior with dead space. 4) Ok... I guess I can see the mouse thing being really annoying (as on Windows at least my mouse is locked to the visible area), but it doesn't seem to actually be the case? Again: maybe this is a documentation issue? https://stackoverflow.com/questions/34092554/x11-restrict-mouse-to-visible-area https://stackoverflow.com/questions/34092554/x11-restrict-mo...
      - sspiff 3y ago
        Either you edited your comment, or infinitely more likely, I replied to the wrong comment
loeg 3y ago
> This paragraph seems to imply that X does not work with multiple displays, but I have never had issues with those. You used to have to write a custom Xorg.conf with like modelines and shit for each display, but it was doable. But custom Xorg.confs haven't been needed for like, decades. There's some WYSIWYG multi-display setup in KDE Plasma, which just works, and I'm pretty sure GNOME has some equivalent as well.

orthecreedence 3y ago

> This paragraph seems to imply that X does not work with multiple displays, but I have never had issues with those. I had issues with it, and it's honestly the main reason I switched to Wayland. And while I don't regret that decision, I live in constant annoyance of all the little things that used to work but just don't now. Wayland and/or its implementations are just not feature complete, and in many cases are a step backwards in UX. I think it's great people stay on X. I wish I could have.

saurik 3y ago
Maybe it is merely a documentation issue? I keep hearing stories on the one hand of people (such as yourself) who say they failed to get X working with multiple displays... and yet, a ton of software seems to exist predicated on the notion of working with multiple displays (even i3) and a number of actual users claim to have multiple displays working. https://ptgamr.notion.site/xrand-4k-mixed-monitors-7a026e5345994267aebfa01a32044a2f https://ptgamr.notion.site/xrand-4k-mixed-monitors-7a026e534... ^ maybe this would be useful? This seems like a pretty simple single run of xrandr that configures multiple (three, even) monitors on X all at different resolutions and ending up at different display scaling (including one fractional scaling). Like, looking at this, I feel as if I should be able to get this working myself, were I to have multiple monitors (I don't on my Linux laptop). FWIW, I love the idea of helping someone not be sad about having to switch to Wayland by getting them back on X with all of their happy software working, and so if you want to try to debug whatever your issue was together, I'm game. To me, what makes Linux fun is all of the random combinations and hacking we can do together, and it just seems like people are both losing that ethos and even saying we are wrong for enjoying it, and that makes me a bit demoralized :(.
- sspiff 3y ago
  Multiple displays work on X11 by having one big canvas/virtual display, and having each monitor show the contents of a part of that canvas. There are some restrictions because of this. One is that per display scaling is unsupported in the worst case, or a hack in the best case. Another is that the virtual display is always a rectangle, meaning that if you have different resolution displays, you end up with some parts of the canvas not being displayed anywhere. Most window managers and desktop environments know not to place window contents or UI chrome there (like panels), but the space is still there, and you can see this when using screenshot utilities which simply write the whole canvas to a file. Your mouse pointer can also hide in these invisible sections. Getting X11 to display content on video outputs located on different video cards from different vendors can sometimes feel like a dark art, but other than that it mostly just works.
  - saurik 3y ago
    1) FWIW, I understood that, given the xrandr explainer that I linked, which was clearly doing all of that ;P. 2) Regardless, the person I'm replying to was using i3 (and is now using Sway), so I'm thinking that a lot of these limitations don't matter much? I mean, with i3 you aren't even going to ever have a window crossing the boundary between two monitors much less ending up off-screen somewhere. 3) I use a ton of random monitors at wildly different resolutions on Windows and frankly it's the same thing: there is a conceptual bounding rectangle for all of the monitors and you can absolutely have Windows hanging off the edge of monitors; also: I don't know how you expect anything to support non-rectangular screenshots so all of my screenshots on Windows--as well as my VNC servers--all have the same behavior with dead space. 4) Ok... I guess I can see the mouse thing being really annoying (as on Windows at least my mouse is locked to the visible area), but it doesn't seem to actually be the case? Again: maybe this is a documentation issue? https://stackoverflow.com/questions/34092554/x11-restrict-mouse-to-visible-area https://stackoverflow.com/questions/34092554/x11-restrict-mo...
    - sspiff 3y ago
      Either you edited your comment, or infinitely more likely, I replied to the wrong comment

loeg 3y ago

> This paragraph seems to imply that X does not work with multiple displays, but I have never had issues with those. You used to have to write a custom Xorg.conf with like modelines and shit for each display, but it was doable. But custom Xorg.confs haven't been needed for like, decades. There's some WYSIWYG multi-display setup in KDE Plasma, which just works, and I'm pretty sure GNOME has some equivalent as well.