3 ms·
The point of the protocol spec being minimal is that it enables a wide variety of implementations, something it definitely succeeded at. I still don't know how
by imtringued 10mo ago
The point of the protocol spec being minimal is that it enables a wide variety of implementations, something it definitely succeeded at.
I still don't know how people twist this obvious success into a failure.
- LeFantome 10mo agoXorg fans reverse all the normal Open Source logic. Imagine we were talking about web browsers… There should only be one! No security makes all my extensions work!
- XorNot 10mo agoImagine if web browsers all had mutually incompatible DOM implementations for basic functionalities. That's the situation with Wayland that people are complaining about. I don't need innovation in keyboard and mouse sharing, I need it to work.
- rcxdude 10mo agoI mean, at least with web browsers they usually converge on a common spec eventually, and most of the time you just have a bit stupid repetition in your CSS for a bit. Wayland compositors seem to be actively against this kind of process.
- superkuh 10mo agoIt's a very forced comparison trying to swap in the web's security model, where one runs untrusted code from arbitrary third parties automatically, for a personal desktop computer context where a single user is in complete control.
- account42 10mo agoIf anything, Wayland is designed for closed appliances. The free software ecosystem does not need to distrust applications.
- superkuh 10mo agoUh... lived experience? Try getting keyboard and mouse sharing working across all the waylands with the same software. Not having most of the features in the standard implementation leads to fragmentation which apparently you haven't run into with your use cases yet.
- rcxdude 10mo agoThat wide variety of implementations is a big part of the problem!