Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's quite a stretch, Wayland and X (any X, 11 or hypothetical 12) are so vastly different that calling Wayland "the new X" is like calling Quartz "X for macOS".
isn't X11 a full redesign of X10 like Wayland is of X11?
X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)
131–140 of 318 posts
Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I've seen commentary from people who have worked intimately on both protocols and implementations of both who consider Wayland to have the better architecture. For those interested in details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWQh_DmDLKQ
This link comes up in literally every Wayland thread and it is even more bullshit now than it was in 2013 when it was first posted (and it was bullshit then too). It is titled "the real story" but it is quite the opposite. A few key points: 1) he laughs at how X has a bunch of extensions. https://wayland.app/protocols/ hypocrites much. In 2013, since it was completely unusable, it probably didn't have many. But turns…
2) he talks about obsolete hardware. There's no really a point to support s3 trio, at the expense of support for modern hardware, which works ink wastly different way.
3) That graceful degradation is in practice the same, as just using Wayland. Ever tried to use modern X11 app over network? RDP is vastly better experience, (and RDP support is wip in wayland).
4) This is so wrong so I won't even react to it.
5) Wayland calls do not wait for reply. You rapid fire requests and then collect responses as they come. Heck, you can even get a response you didn't ask for ;)
Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wayland screen sharing works fine (in Chrome, Webex...). It doesn't work in Teams, but that's Microsoft's issue, since they didn't bother with implementing it.
If it's preventing your users to switch to your platform, it's your problem too...
The linux team client seems to be completely unmaintained and might be thrown away soon. If you need to use teams, use it in a browser.
Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having to disable compositing doesn't sound very reliable.
If it works, it works. And some of us never bothered installing a compositor in the first place, so it's hardly a high bar.
Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, you can get screen sharing to work. But there are like 3 different incompatible "standards" for how to do it. There's no single simple answer to "how to record the screen in Wayland". This has been the state of screen sharing on Wayland for at least 7 years. I'm also very curious about what's envisioned for global hotkeys. Surely we don't expect people to manually go to their system settings and configure som…
There is one standard and single simple answer: xdg-desktop-portal with pipewire. Some compositors might have implemented their own private APIs, but that is not a standard by definition. Global shortcuts are a bit more thorny, exactly for the reason you mentioned. You present one POV, the another is, that application-defined shortcuts are incredibly hostile, as they allow application to stomp on each other in the be…
> A portal frontend service for Flatpak and possibly other desktop containment frameworks.
When it comes to global shortcuts, I'm not saying it has a super easy solution, but it's something that it's essential to support. Wayland intentionally doesn't, and I can't see that changing in the short term (as you also agree)
Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)
#136The discussion about "wayland vs X11" is eerily reminiscent of the discussion of "systemd vs. sysv-init"... Some people apparently really do hate it when things change that they seemingly have no control over Edit: I fully expect to be downvoted into oblivion for this post :-D
Stuff like xdotool, screen sharing, clipboard sharing, etc. is much harder.
Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)
#137Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)
#138The discussion about "wayland vs X11" is eerily reminiscent of the discussion of "systemd vs. sysv-init"... Some people apparently really do hate it when things change that they seemingly have no control over Edit: I fully expect to be downvoted into oblivion for this post :-D
The largest issue with Wayland is it has "Linuxisms". That means no work was done by the Wayland people to make it portable to other UN*X. So the BSD folks (and other UNIX people) have a lot of work to get it going. And there still seems to be confusion if or will Wayland require systemd, from what I have seen, no 100% clear direction from anyone.
Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)
#139X is almost 40yo, stable, reliable, difficult to maintain. Wayland is 15yo, barely usable. Any old timers remember 1999 when X was 15? Wayland is like IPv6 of desktops
It's the default on several distros. I regularly play AAA games on my gentoo gaming PC, using proprietary NVIDIA drivers, on KDE Plasma, with little or no performance differences compared to X11.
Even the Steam Deck, arguably the most popular linux PC, runs its default UI on Wayland.
Re: X12: Requirements for a successor to the X11 protocol (2013)
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wayland is the default on Fedora, Ubuntu, Red Hat, and Debian. The majority of desktop linux users is probably on Wayland by now.
The majority of graphics cards are Nvidia which don't play nicely at all with Wayland.