5 ms·

Not too bad? A hidden procedure with ten clicks, which the user has to repeat for each web browser. And it may break at any time if the browser changes some det

Not too bad? A hidden procedure with ten clicks, which the user has to repeat for each web browser. And it may break at any time if the browser changes some details. Or if KDE changes. And it's specific to KDE, with no alternatives in most Wayland WMs. All that for _one_ feature which works out-of-the-box with Xorg, and which Wayland removed for security reasons. From what I've seen, sharing the screen is another common feature which was broken with Wayland and is still painful. I don't think Wayland's security model is very relevant to me since I have faith in Debian for filtering out rogue applications. So I have to reason to drop my smooth UX for a world of "not too bad" workarounds.

thesuitonym 4mo ago
Look, I'm not a Wayland booster, I still prefer X11 most of the time, but this is really the way it should work. Applications should not be allowed to dictate how windows appear. That is the job of the window manager. Chrome's PIP is a stupid workaround for Windows and Mac because they do not have robust window management.
- senfiaj 4mo ago
  >> Chrome's PIP is a stupid workaround for Windows and Mac because they do not have robust window management. What are you talking about? It's very convenient when I watch video while I do some work or entertaining thing on other web page or app. It's fine if you don't want to use it but many people do.
  - thesuitonym 4mo ago
    Yes, it's fine, but it shouldn't be necessary. If Windows and Mac OS just had native support for always-on-top windows, you wouldn't need it.
    - c-hendricks 4mo ago
      I actually prefer macOS's PiP handling compared to other operating systems. In that it's a blessed concept that only goes to one corner of the screen and can be shunted out of the way easily.
      - thesuitonym 4mo ago
        Now imagine if that was designed properly, and you could just do that to any window, regardless of what the program thinks it should look like.
        bombela 4mo ago
        I use pinned (always above + on all workspace/desktop) quite often. And to make it ergonomic I scripted kwin and set some shortcuts. So yes, you can have any window PiP the way you like. But it requires you to do a long sequence of actions. Versus a single click for very specific PiP behavior. Consider a window in a web browser tab. You could click the PiP button, which will pop out a tiny window, most likely already in a corner of the screen. This window is a mini video player. Your original browser tab stays untoucher, still at the same place in your web browser tab list, the rest of the tab still readable and scrollable etc etc. Or, you could clone the tab. Move it to its own window. Locate the video. Put it in full screen. Un-fullscreen the window. Click on the pin button. Resize the window to the corner. Same result, but not the same effort.
    - jkrejcha 4mo ago
      Windows has had native support for always on top windows for over 25 years
- porridgeraisin 4mo ago
  This is the issue with imposing semantics of the programming model on the behaviour. User behaviour is the only _real_ thing, it happens. Everything else is in your head. If people in the real world use PiP, then it should happen. The programming model has to bend and change to support it. It simply does not matter if the window manager does something or the window does something. Sure, there is always the security argument wayland folks fall back to. But what ever is the problem with making a one-time permission popup? "Google Chrome wants to open in PiP: allow | allow once.". Just expose the existing PiP code in the window manager as an API guarded with an `if` that apps can call. It's not even that much real work, just pure bikeshedding and architecture astronauting.
  - thesuitonym 4mo ago
    Right right, and I'm not saying users shouldn't be able to have a floating window with video (or whatever) in it. I'm saying it shouldn't be Chrome making that window floating and always visible.
    - porridgeraisin 4mo ago
      I don't get it, if you're on google meet, and you want to make one of many videos PiP. How can you ever do that in the window manager? It has to be done in the application! You right click or click on the menu on that particular video, and click Picture in picture. How the heck can the window manager do it?
      - pseudalopex 4mo ago
        The application could tell the window manager it wanted an always on top window. The window manager could ask the user if it should allow or reject and remember for this application or not.
        porridgeraisin 4mo ago
        That's exactly what I said... and also not how wayland works. I cannot comprehend the way wayland folks think... quote from the xdg-pip discussion: > To not make PiP windows effectively "always on top" and "on every workspace" dialogs - a terrible and sadly by applications used concept on X11 - PiP windows must be input-only, i.e. not receive keyboard, pointer and touch input Like what the heck even? That is how pip windows are expected to work? And of course you want inputs on them? e.g to mute/unmute on a video call? Like these are use cases used daily by people. And its "terrible".
- zarzavat 4mo ago
  The job of the window manager is to manage windows if the user wants it to do that. However there's many situations in which users want the application to be in charge of window positioning. Making a decision on the user's behalf doesn't sound very free to me.
sho_hn 4mo ago
Note there is also a far simpler one: You can right-click the window on the taskbar and click Keep Above. This works for any window.
- account42 4mo ago
  But then you'll have to do it every time.
gf000 4mo ago
> I have faith in Debian for filtering out rogue applications Sorry but all I can say to that is: lol As for security, it's easy/possible to cut holes into a solid wall. But if your whole system is swiss cheese, you can't plug all of them in. Wayland is a solid wall where protocols are the means to cut new holes. Sure, protocol development is slow (at least their acceptance), but this is the proper way to do it. And even if you have faith in your applications, do you also have faith in your data? Because it's a mostly C/c++ application set, one vulnerability is enough to make them malicious. And with the beautifully engineered default "GNU/Linux" userspace security model, the only thing a random script can't do on your machine is install a new video card driver. But everything else is under the same user and readily accessible with full network access.
- account42 4mo ago
  Debian applications are not sandboxed so gimping the window system gains you exactly nothing. And yes, we can expect Debian to filter rogue applications.

thesuitonym 4mo ago

Look, I'm not a Wayland booster, I still prefer X11 most of the time, but this is really the way it should work. Applications should not be allowed to dictate how windows appear. That is the job of the window manager. Chrome's PIP is a stupid workaround for Windows and Mac because they do not have robust window management.

senfiaj 4mo ago
>> Chrome's PIP is a stupid workaround for Windows and Mac because they do not have robust window management. What are you talking about? It's very convenient when I watch video while I do some work or entertaining thing on other web page or app. It's fine if you don't want to use it but many people do.
- thesuitonym 4mo ago
  Yes, it's fine, but it shouldn't be necessary. If Windows and Mac OS just had native support for always-on-top windows, you wouldn't need it.
  - c-hendricks 4mo ago
    I actually prefer macOS's PiP handling compared to other operating systems. In that it's a blessed concept that only goes to one corner of the screen and can be shunted out of the way easily.
    - thesuitonym 4mo ago
      Now imagine if that was designed properly, and you could just do that to any window, regardless of what the program thinks it should look like.
      - bombela 4mo ago
        I use pinned (always above + on all workspace/desktop) quite often. And to make it ergonomic I scripted kwin and set some shortcuts. So yes, you can have any window PiP the way you like. But it requires you to do a long sequence of actions. Versus a single click for very specific PiP behavior. Consider a window in a web browser tab. You could click the PiP button, which will pop out a tiny window, most likely already in a corner of the screen. This window is a mini video player. Your original browser tab stays untoucher, still at the same place in your web browser tab list, the rest of the tab still readable and scrollable etc etc. Or, you could clone the tab. Move it to its own window. Locate the video. Put it in full screen. Un-fullscreen the window. Click on the pin button. Resize the window to the corner. Same result, but not the same effort.
  - jkrejcha 4mo ago
    Windows has had native support for always on top windows for over 25 years
porridgeraisin 4mo ago
This is the issue with imposing semantics of the programming model on the behaviour. User behaviour is the only _real_ thing, it happens. Everything else is in your head. If people in the real world use PiP, then it should happen. The programming model has to bend and change to support it. It simply does not matter if the window manager does something or the window does something. Sure, there is always the security argument wayland folks fall back to. But what ever is the problem with making a one-time permission popup? "Google Chrome wants to open in PiP: allow | allow once.". Just expose the existing PiP code in the window manager as an API guarded with an `if` that apps can call. It's not even that much real work, just pure bikeshedding and architecture astronauting.
- thesuitonym 4mo ago
  Right right, and I'm not saying users shouldn't be able to have a floating window with video (or whatever) in it. I'm saying it shouldn't be Chrome making that window floating and always visible.
  - porridgeraisin 4mo ago
    I don't get it, if you're on google meet, and you want to make one of many videos PiP. How can you ever do that in the window manager? It has to be done in the application! You right click or click on the menu on that particular video, and click Picture in picture. How the heck can the window manager do it?
    - pseudalopex 4mo ago
      The application could tell the window manager it wanted an always on top window. The window manager could ask the user if it should allow or reject and remember for this application or not.
      - porridgeraisin 4mo ago
        That's exactly what I said... and also not how wayland works. I cannot comprehend the way wayland folks think... quote from the xdg-pip discussion: > To not make PiP windows effectively "always on top" and "on every workspace" dialogs - a terrible and sadly by applications used concept on X11 - PiP windows must be input-only, i.e. not receive keyboard, pointer and touch input Like what the heck even? That is how pip windows are expected to work? And of course you want inputs on them? e.g to mute/unmute on a video call? Like these are use cases used daily by people. And its "terrible".
zarzavat 4mo ago
The job of the window manager is to manage windows if the user wants it to do that. However there's many situations in which users want the application to be in charge of window positioning. Making a decision on the user's behalf doesn't sound very free to me.

sho_hn 4mo ago

Note there is also a far simpler one: You can right-click the window on the taskbar and click Keep Above. This works for any window.

account42 4mo ago
But then you'll have to do it every time.

gf000 4mo ago

> I have faith in Debian for filtering out rogue applications Sorry but all I can say to that is: lol As for security, it's easy/possible to cut holes into a solid wall. But if your whole system is swiss cheese, you can't plug all of them in. Wayland is a solid wall where protocols are the means to cut new holes. Sure, protocol development is slow (at least their acceptance), but this is the proper way to do it. And even if you have faith in your applications, do you also have faith in your data? Because it's a mostly C/c++ application set, one vulnerability is enough to make them malicious. And with the beautifully engineered default "GNU/Linux" userspace security model, the only thing a random script can't do on your machine is install a new video card driver. But everything else is under the same user and readily accessible with full network access.

account42 4mo ago
Debian applications are not sandboxed so gimping the window system gains you exactly nothing. And yes, we can expect Debian to filter rogue applications.