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

121–130 of 214 posts

Re: Wayland on OpenBSD

#121

Post by pravus »

dagenix wrote: post #17
shrubble wrote: post #11

I as a user haven't seen any reason to care about Wayland. And losing/dropping X11's network transparency seems rather surprising in a heavily networked world...

In my experience, running X11 over a network worked very poorly. There is significant overlap between former X11 developers and Wayland developers. They didn't drop it because they are incompetent which seems to be what your are implying. The people that decided to drop it are probably the people that know X11 the best.

It has worked great for me for decades and I currently stream live video over X11 on my LAN.

And no, I don't think the developers are incompetent, they obviously have different priorities than I do. Being able to shift an entire desktop environment over a network is something I've done since I started using the internet in various ways and I'll echo the sentiment that it seems incredibly useless to remove this feature in today's world.

To be quite honest I'm tired of this holier-than-though attitude. They dropped it because they are lazy or just don't want to support it and they should just be honest about that. They certainly didn't do it because it makes my life easier and I wish they would stop telling me I'm in the wrong.

Re: Wayland on OpenBSD

#122

Post by Vilian »

kaba0 wrote: post #109
j16sdiz wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

in the comment session of that HW post there was a lot of people saying that they hate to create projects and prefer to maintaing code, if even the mainteiners don't want to work on it, just proves how complex it was

Re: Wayland on OpenBSD

#123

Post by vetinari »

j16sdiz wrote: post #105
fsh wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Xinerama came with the price of not supporting mixed DPI. It was logically a single screen, just with irregular shape, so all screens had to be same DPI (and bit-depth, but that's not an issue nowadays).

Re: Wayland on OpenBSD

#124

Post by Vilian »

j16sdiz wrote: post #105
fsh wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

honestly explain to me, if it's work as perfect as you seen to say, why i never heard about it outside of openbsd, why any distro adoped it to resolve it Xorg problems

Re: Wayland on OpenBSD

#125

Post by vasvir »

shrubble wrote: post #11

I as a user haven't seen any reason to care about Wayland. And losing/dropping X11's network transparency seems rather surprising in a heavily networked world...

xpra saves the day when you have to go over a DSL line. If you have a direct LAN connection it may not absolutely required but it still helps.

RDP works great in LAN (win-win win-linux) and ok over DSL.

Plain ssh/X11 over DSL is a disaster but may be passable on a LAN.

RDP is the better protocol here and pipewire mimics it (I think) which is the correct thing to do. X11 was designed for throughput and not latency and that kills any desktop interactivity.

As somebody that my job depends on it I don't worry too much about the future of display networking. I think we would be ok at the end.

Re: Wayland on OpenBSD

#126

Post by vetinari »

smorrebrod wrote: post #116
WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think it is because Linux users tend to be more familiar with their software than users of other OSes. They chose it and they configured them, sometimes for hours. Also they may have bent software to their liking and when you change something so important as the way images are rendered, then their particular workflow can go haywire. I was in the community for less change (wayland, systemd, etc.) however now I tend…

> I think it is because Linux users tend to be more familiar with their software than users of other OSes.

But they really don't. They might have familiarized at one point of time, but that snapshot is not where the world is at now. They cannot really expect that the world around them will stop developing, so their know-how and hacks stay current.

It is still this, all over again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTdUmlGxVo0. 12 years later and we still argue in circles.

Re: Wayland on OpenBSD

#127

Post by vetinari »

j16sdiz wrote: post #108
kaba0 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It is more than event routing, you do not really want for any client to be able to claim any combination, without any further insight by either compositor or user.

Ideally, what you want, is for the client expose a set of (described) actions, with suggested key bindings. Users can then enable / disable / change the bindings in some central place, which would also take care about collisions, reserved global keybinding or reserved local keybinding (key shortcuts, that are always supposed to be available to the focused app).

Re: Wayland on OpenBSD

#128

Post by happymellon »

j16sdiz wrote: post #111
kaba0 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gnome is not your window manager - it’s your display server. You can trivially install/write an extension to manage your windows differently and reuse everything gnome provides for example. A wm has always been trivial compared to a display manager, people just mistake one for the other.

I still think having multiple display server implementation is a mistake. Qt/KDE is lagging behind and there are no easy way for them to catch up. Had the display server been a single implementation, Qt/KDE can focus on WM/Widget..

But that's KDEs fault.

They want to have everything built in-house, they could join forces with Sway/WLRoots but when approached they declined.

I am fine with having multiple implementations, we don't want to get stuck with a defacto standard, but don't blaming KDEs choices on Wayland.

Re: Wayland on OpenBSD

#129

Post by badsectoracula »

bitwize wrote: post #45
badsectoracula wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't tried it (because i do not really need network transparency and i'm using Xorg anyway) but supposedly this project[0] implements the Wayland protocol on top of Xorg in a way that integrates mostly seamlessly with X11-based desktops (instead of creating a window and running Wayland inside it as if it was a monitor isolated from the rest of the desktop). It might be useful to be able to run Wayland applicatio…

Waypipe can run Wayland applications remotely in a more modern fashion that doesn't suck ass on all but the fastest network links. But this will be a useful stopgap for those who stubbornly cling to X11 (or are forced to, e.g. by NVIDIA hardware) as more and more useful software drops X support and goes Wayland-only.

> more and more useful software drops X support and goes Wayland-only.

I can't think of any such case, any example?

Besides even if X support is dropped by an application, 12to11 - or any other Wayland implementation that runs under X - will keep it working. It isn't like most programs use X directly anyway.

Re: Wayland on OpenBSD

#130

Post by badsectoracula »

shmerl wrote: post #35
badsectoracula wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think it will eventually start to suffer benign neglect, and stop keeping up with new hardware. At least on Linux, Xorg and Wayland compositors use the same underlying APIs, so the chances of Xorg not running somewhere Wayland runs are pretty much zero - unless said new hardware is only exposed via a new kernel API and nobody bothers to update the modesetting driver for it and/or to write a new Xorg driver for th…

> Xorg and Wayland compositors use the same underlying APIs Not really. KWin has Wayland specific paths that simply don't work on X and developers are increasingly simply not bothering to go out of their way with X if something isn't possible to implement over it. So X use case is going to further deteriorate, that's inevitable.

> Not really. KWin has Wayland specific paths that simply don't work on X

What exactly do you refer to? Note that i meant the kernel APIs to drive the hardware as what i replied to was Xorg not keeping up with newer hardware, not toolkits.

Post reply on HN