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

161–170 of 214 posts

Re: Wayland on OpenBSD

#161

Post by Monsterovich »

growse wrote: post #49
sprash wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a matter of funding. X11 development is not funded anymore whereas Wayland is heavily funded through proxies like Collabora or Igalia. It is unclear who are the originators of that money since those proxy orgs don't disclose who funds them. Since Wayland is a horribly complicated protocol that makes doing even the simplest tasks a major chore I would consider it sabotage. There are multiple billion+ dollar corps…

A wild conspiracy theory appears! Of course, like any good conspiracy, it's very competent and expansive, managing to simultaneously secretly convince all the major distros to use it by default and cruelly suppressing any efforts to provide funding and engineering effort towards X11. In reality, Wayland works great for most Linux desktop users (on the mainstream distros) and no-one is funding X because no-one wants t…

> In reality, Wayland works great for most Linux desktop users (on the mainstream distros) and no-one is funding X because no-one wants to.

Actually, because it's ready and it works. And yes, most distributions use Xorg by default and all attempts to switch to Wayland fail, ex. Ubuntu. (maybe GNOME is an exception, but it's probably the only DE where Wayland somehow works).

Re: Wayland on OpenBSD

#162

Post by Fnoord »

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…

Half the programs you use? Are you OK with all of these programs having access to each other? Would using XWayland not solve the issue? The main issue I have with X programs in Wayland is that I use 4k and the scaling is off. But its still usable.

Re: Wayland on OpenBSD

#163

Post by rkangel »

orbital-decay wrote: post #39
kiwijamo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use Wayland daily and haven't run into the issues you mention. It has worked better than X11 as a daily driver for a few years now. I appreciate may not work for some To be honest I associate 'barely usable' more with X11. I haven't forgotten the good old days when I had to hack various configuration files just to get a working desktop and then hack some more to work around issues with tearing, video acceleration,…

> I use Wayland daily and haven't run into the issues you mention. I appreciate may not work for some Such as having a modern wide gamut/HDR display, or a display without a blue spectrum spike. Or printing anything in color. Or doing photography or digital painting. Or switching to another compositor on a non-default keyboard layout (as Wayland doesn't have the replacement for this basic X functionality, compositors…

> It's fine to have the "works on my machine" attitude for a user discussing this on the web. I just hope the devs of what is being pushed as a replacement for what works don't have it. (and the signals aren't good)

The problem is that it's "works on my machine" on both sides of the debate. Elsewhere in the comments is someone saying that they've never seen screen tearing and have perfectly good HiDPI on X.

I will make one statistical argument - Fedora is Wayland-by-default now. Plenty of people still use Fedora and have no problems.

Re: Wayland on OpenBSD

#164

Post by Monsterovich »

CameronNemo wrote: post #31
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...

Perhaps you are on hardware that does that not have this issue, but I had really bad screen tearing with an Intel iGPU running X11.

This looks like sabotage from the Wayland-centric mesa developers who didn't add TearFree to the core xorg modesetting driver because the older one had this feature. Use V-Sync in the compositor.

Re: Wayland on OpenBSD

#165

Post by rkangel »

Monsterovich wrote: post #157
growse wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - Screenshots and sharing the screen; Here's a screenshot I just took on my plasma / wayland desktop. https://imgur.com/a/IBI6u3S Here's a screenshot of me sharing a window in firefox: https://imgur.com/a/LpdyqIl > Global hotkeys I use global hotkeys to switch between keyboard layouts, see the screenshot. Works fine. > Alternative / switchable / tunable keyboard layouts and input methods. Not fancy stuff, just, say…

> Here's a screenshot of me sharing a window in firefox: You forgot to mention that it doesn't work without portals and Pipewire dependency, and portals have to be implemented individually for each DE. > I use global hotkeys to switch between keyboard layouts, see the screenshot. Works fine. Because the KDE developers went to a lot of effort to make it work. That doesn't mean it will work well in other DEs and that i…

You've moved the goalposts on this argument now. "$Thing is hard to implement on Wayland and requires quite a lot of effort by each DE"[1] is a very different argument to "$Thing doesn't work on Wayland". Pretty much everything you listed works well in Fedora with Gnome/Mutter.

If the maintainers of the DEs are happy with the effort, then I don't see a problem? (unless you're a DE maintainer, in which case - fair enough).

[1] When I first wrote this sentence I wrote "X is hard to implement" using X as a metasyntactic variable before I realised that was incredibly confusing in context!

Re: Wayland on OpenBSD

#166

Post by rkangel »

didntcheck wrote: post #139
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.

Yes that's the point I'm making. It is now a display server. On X it was just a desktop environment. Traditionally that comprises * A set of utility X applications, like a panel and launcher * A recommended window manager * A recommended display manager And then this all runs on top of a separate X display server Generally the last two are easy to replace, for example I have used both Compiz and Xmonad on Gnome 2 and…

> Yes that's the point I'm making. It is now a display server. On X it was just a desktop environment.

I think this is the point, but maybe in the opposite way you mean: X was the wrong architecture for what we want to achieve with a display system these days.

Some of that is about security, some of that is about which piece knows about what is responsible for what to make the system work. Wayland changes the responsibilities significantly. This is a GOOD thing - it's why things like HiDPI can be made to work in Wayland and fundamentally don't in X (unless you control a lot of variables very carefully).

Re: Wayland on OpenBSD

#167

Post by Monsterovich »

rcxdude wrote: post #88
vetinari wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It not broken. The complains on the linked gist remind me complaining, how introducing protected memory broke applications. And you couldn't read or write i/o ports directly in our app anymore, you had to go through so-called kernel! So much bloat! So I put wayland is broken, because it doesn't allow what x11 did in the same way, ideally stomping on the others into the same category. For screenshots and capture, ther…

> 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…

> This is kind of the problem, though. X11's model of 'everything can access everything' is obviously bad,

It's neither bad nor good. That's the default. All the "no security" cries are nothing more than whining (not a single person has been harmed in 20 years). If security features were so necessary, people would have been implementing them a long time ago - https://www.x.org/releases/X11R7.6/doc/xorg-docs/specs/Xserv....

> but when wayland went with a more restrictive model they didn't provide a means for legitimate functionality like this

Furthermore, this model is embedded in the core architecture and cannot be fixed except by crutches.

Re: Wayland on OpenBSD

#168

Post by rkangel »

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...

As a user who doesn't want to spend hours fiddling with config to make my PC work, Wayland is good for me. Plugging and unplugging monitors is now generally predictable correct in a way that it didn't used to be.

Re: Wayland on OpenBSD

#169

Post by growse »

Monsterovich wrote: post #161
growse wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A wild conspiracy theory appears! Of course, like any good conspiracy, it's very competent and expansive, managing to simultaneously secretly convince all the major distros to use it by default and cruelly suppressing any efforts to provide funding and engineering effort towards X11. In reality, Wayland works great for most Linux desktop users (on the mainstream distros) and no-one is funding X because no-one wants t…

> In reality, Wayland works great for most Linux desktop users (on the mainstream distros) and no-one is funding X because no-one wants to. Actually, because it's ready and it works. And yes, most distributions use Xorg by default and all attempts to switch to Wayland fail, ex. Ubuntu. (maybe GNOME is an exception, but it's probably the only DE where Wayland somehow works).

> And yes, most distributions use Xorg by default and all attempts to switch to Wayland fail, ex. Ubuntu. (maybe GNOME is an exception, but it's probably the only DE where Wayland somehow works).

This is just false. Wayland's the default in Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian (how many users is that?) etc. And it works just fine out of the box on Gnome and KDE/Plasma, the two big DEs.

Re: Wayland on OpenBSD

#170

Post by Monsterovich »

marcthe12 wrote: post #153
badsectoracula wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Well I believe there is foot. GTK devs ae planning to drop X11 support in gtk5 and they will start work on that after gnome 45 release so in a couple of years, all gnome apps

Since GTK4, GTK is a dead framework. I don't even have it on my system. GNOME killed GTK, so I'm waiting for the community to finally fork GTK3 and make a compatibility layer for GTK2, because there are a lot of GTK2 applications.
Post reply on HN