Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wayland on OpenBSD

xenocara.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 214 posts

Re: Wayland on OpenBSD

#101

Post by vetinari »

sprash wrote: post #92
kaba0 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, can I also get some of that sweet Wayland money? I’m sure that sub-3% desktop users is such a good market. Seriously, these conteo people really have trouble with rational thought — a goddamn chrome extension would be a bigger market.

The money is paid for Wayland to make sure the FOSS desktop will stay sub-3%. You obviously don't understand the concept of sabotage. (And yes literally millions of dollars have been invested into Wayland)

Millions were invested into Automotive Grade Linux, of which Wayland is a part. Minus the xdg-shell stuff, of course, which isn't needed there.

Re: Wayland on OpenBSD

#102

Post by j16sdiz »

kaba0 wrote: post #72
hist_thr wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wayland is a replacement for X11 in the same way that a tricycle is a replacement for a tractor. They have thrown everything difficult out of the spec and only implemented the most trivial functionality around a security model which you must actively break to get actual work (like screen shots) done. That Wayland is 10 years old and still barely usable should tell you how far software developers have fallen in the la…

Yeah, please repeat the same bullshit for the umpteenth time. This happens under every goddamn wayland-related thread from people who have never ever touched anything graphics related with this typical cocky attitude - at this point this is just fake news. So if X is so great, why exactly have the very developers who worked on it all switched to Wayland? Like, if they could made something you believe is good, shouldn…

> So if X is so great, why exactly have the very developers who worked on it all switched to Wayland?

Because some developers love greenfield projects. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36642796

> And that barely usable part is pure bullshit again — how else would it be the default protocol for plenty distros already?

A default that broke half of the programs I use. Thank you.

To be fair, lots of progress in the past two years. It went from 90% broken to 50% broken..

Re: Wayland on OpenBSD

#103

Post by mrighele »

vetinari wrote: post #93
rcxdude wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For global shortcuts, there's an API in the making. This is kind of the problem, though. X11's model of 'everything can access everything' is obviously bad, but when wayland went with a more restrictive model they didn't provide a means for legitimate functionality like this. That's basically the origin of all the objection: things that worked on X11 don't work on wayland, because wayland's developers seem to be ve…

Things "worked" by the virtue of being able to snoop on everything and inject anything; which is exactly what is wrong about the approach. On the other hand, Rome wasn't built in a day either. You want to do it right, not quickly. The final solution will be there for decades, so it better be not drag on maintenance and further development. Especially one, where the requirements are not so clear (no, register random k…

Snooping was just the mean, not the end. Nobody is asking to be able to do that, people ask to get the same result.

When you add memory protection to a system you don't just say "you cannot have process communicate", you give them the tool to do it in a safe way.

> You want to do it right, not quickly.

You want to do it right in reasonable time, otherwise by the time it is done it is obsolete. Given the time it took to add basic functionality, I would say that the design is not a good one.

In particular I suspect that the unstated premise was that everybody would be using Gnome by now, so that offloading to Gnome all of that functionality was a smart idea. Unfortunately people stubbornly continue to use the software that they like, so now we are in this situation.

> The final solution will be there for decades

There is no final solution, in 40 years the needs will be quite different that those of today, so it is not easy to satisfy both. You need an architecture that can evolve with the needs.

Re: Wayland on OpenBSD

#104

Post by mhitza »

hist_thr wrote: post #27
zamalek wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They have thrown everything difficult out of the spec Not exactly, they have thrown out everything that almost nobody uses - such as networking. They have, however, added things that most people do care about - such as different HiDPI across multiple monitors and an extremely thin (low latency) render path. > That Wayland is 10 years old and still barely usable And that has changed in the past 2 years (with excepti…

>Not exactly, they have thrown out everything that almost nobody uses - such as networking. And color calibration. >such as different HiDPI across multiple monitors I had this working with multiple X11 servers 20 years ago. >And that has changed in the past 2 years I was told that exact same line 5 years ago. I guess it will be just as true in 5 years again.

This is a better comment than your previous one, in which you just dismissed the project and the work people have been doing without touching on any key issues you might have with wayland.

I myself was not a fan of wayland either, due to a bunch of functionality removed which I use in my workflow, and will stick with XOrg until XFCE forces me to switch to Wayland.

There's a lot of churn in the Linux ecosystem, and some are going to be better received than others. I didn't see the point in Wayland (but I'm not a maintainer of XOrg code to understand how bad the codebase is), I see the principle behind ideas like Flatpak (although not sure if they have a good sandboxing story now, but they sure have their GBs of layers), but when it comes to pipewire, for example, I'm very happy that it exists.

Re: Wayland on OpenBSD

#105

Post by j16sdiz »

fsh wrote: post #48
hist_thr wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Not exactly, they have thrown out everything that almost nobody uses - such as networking. And color calibration. >such as different HiDPI across multiple monitors I had this working with multiple X11 servers 20 years ago. >And that has changed in the past 2 years I was told that exact same line 5 years ago. I guess it will be just as true in 5 years again.

> I had this working with multiple X11 servers 20 years ago. People want to move windows between their screens. The lack of proper HiDPI support was really starting to become a problem when trying to run Linux on a laptop that isn't from the early 2000s. Fortunately, with wayland, it now seems mostly solved (at least in Gnome and KDE).

X11R6.4 had it with Xinerama extension, back in 1998.

Re: Wayland on OpenBSD

#106

Post by justinclift »

mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: post #60
justinclift wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... if it was ever a real problem in the first place. It definitely used to be a huge pain in the arse. There used to be pages after pages after pages of random "HOW TO ..." style guides for people to configure X11 config files around the net (many just working for specific hw). It was an incredible mess, with pretty much nothing positive about it. ;)

I've been using Linux for 20 years now and I've never needed more than 5 lines of Xorg config, only a couple lines of which has had meaningful information.

Maybe I was just one of the many er... unlucky ones then. ;)

Re: Wayland on OpenBSD

#107

Post by j16sdiz »

mort96 wrote: post #63
orbital-decay wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Wayland just existed on its own, nobody would have had a problem. The people pushing Wayland are not just its authors, but the distro devs, and the entire fuss is about Wayland being declared as the "future" by certain distro developers recently. This future has an issue - it only supports an opinionated subset of maybe 3/4 use cases of the "past". However broken the past was, replacing it with something that is s…

The problem is, X is terrible. It's janky as hell, screen tearing is everywhere unless you're running extremely particular driver + hardware + X configurations, the screen locker doesn't even engage if you have a context menu open, vital things like compositing are hacked on in janky ways. For some people, Wayland isn't there yet. For a whole lot of other people, Wayland is already better than X. Are distro developer…

> Isn't it enough to provide X as an option for people who need something Wayland doesn't do yet?

Maybe. I just hope the transition is more smooth, and the wayland fanboi don't try to belittle X users.

Re: Wayland on OpenBSD

#108

Post by j16sdiz »

kaba0 wrote: post #77
nine_k wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many, many people care about: - Screenshots and sharing the screen; - Global hotkeys; - Alternative / switchable / tunable keyboard layouts and input methods. Not fancy stuff, just, say, typing Latin, Cyrillic, Greek, and Japanese characters. All these things are is some sort of disarray under Wayland currently. Once they are properly implemented, I may consider switching. I want Wayland to succeed. But it's not enti…

> Screenshots and sharing the screen Works for years. And global hotkeys are not trivial - no, that “everything listens to everything” that X did is not a proper solution.

Global hotkey is do-able if the composer can do the event routing.

Re: Wayland on OpenBSD

#109

Post by kaba0 »

j16sdiz wrote: post #102
kaba0 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, please repeat the same bullshit for the umpteenth time. This happens under every goddamn wayland-related thread from people who have never ever touched anything graphics related with this typical cocky attitude - at this point this is just fake news. So if X is so great, why exactly have the very developers who worked on it all switched to Wayland? Like, if they could made something you believe is good, shouldn…

> So if X is so great, why exactly have the very developers who worked on it all switched to Wayland? Because some developers love greenfield projects. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36642796 > And that barely usable part is pure bullshit again — how else would it be the default protocol for plenty distros already? A default that broke half of the programs I use. Thank you. To be fair, lots of progress in t…

Surely noone would like to develop something even if its greenfield if they don’t see it promising.

Believe me, they would have been more then happy to pop into existence a 100% backwards compatible change, but that is impossible.

Re: Wayland on OpenBSD

#110

Post by WastingMyTime89 »

hist_thr wrote: post #4
themerone wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is about preparing for a post X11 future. As Wayland continues to mature, classic X will attract fewer developer resources. I think it will eventually start to suffer benign neglect, and stop keeping up with new hardware.

Wayland is a replacement for X11 in the same way that a tricycle is a replacement for a tractor. They have thrown everything difficult out of the spec and only implemented the most trivial functionality around a security model which you must actively break to get actual work (like screen shots) done. That Wayland is 10 years old and still barely usable should tell you how far software developers have fallen in the la…

Can someone explain to me why Linux users seem so interested about having this long heated discussion about very low level piece of the OS infrastructure they actually have no expertise about and don’t really care about in a direct way?

It’s a never ending source of amusement for me. If what you do is broken, just go see your OS provider and ask them to fix it. Why do you even care about how things are working under the hood and how developers chose to spend their time?

Post reply on HN