4 ms·
All this time has been wasted by Wayland developers insisting that if Wayland makes something impossible by design, then users who want that thing are simply in
by plorkyeran 1y ago
All this time has been wasted by Wayland developers insisting that if Wayland makes something impossible by design, then users who want that thing are simply incorrect to want it and therefore it doesn't count. Wayland does not deliver on basic shit working, and as long as "that's incompatible with Wayland's security model" is considered an acceptable answer, it never will.
- hollerith 1y agoName one thing Wayland's architecture disallows that is allowed on Windows or MacOS.
- yjftsjthsd-h 1y agoSending emulated key presses to a specific window.
- hollerith 1y agoWhich OS allows that: MacOS or Windows or both? Doesn't sound safe.
- yjftsjthsd-h 1y ago> Which OS allows that: MacOS or Windows or both? Here's a way to do in Windows: https://www.autohotkey.com/docs/v1/lib/ControlSend.htm https://www.autohotkey.com/docs/v1/lib/ControlSend.htm And here's how to do it in macOS: https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/36943/how-do-i-automate-a-key-press-in-applescript https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/36943/how-do-i-aut... > Doesn't sound safe. Yes, this is the usual excuse for why Wayland is intentionally useless. Fun fact: The only difference between a11y software and really awful malware is that the a11y programs work for me, the user. If you make features impossible in the name of "protecting" me, you break things for me.