Live data from Hacker News

The technical merits of Wayland are mostly irrelevant

utcc.utoronto.ca

161–170 of 203 posts

Re: The technical merits of Wayland are mostly irrelevant

#161

Generalizing: the technical merits of are mostly irrelevant. People use software- or any other tool- to solve actual problems that they have, not because they are prettier technically. For example, I have been using Pipewire for a while now, because I have to use a USB sound card intermittently. I don't think it is bad, but I wish I did not have to switch card so I could use ALSA directly. I don't care if PW is techn…

> The articles arguing for the technical superiority of always sound like they are scorning the user for not recognizing the obvious superiority of the new thing. Almost like they considered anyone who does not adopt the new system stupid.

Not just articles. Have you never seen user pjmlp's posts here?

Re: The technical merits of Wayland are mostly irrelevant

#162
post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Refresh rate - sure. But scaling?... > Most people probably don't even know scaling options exist, so using different ones on different monitors is going to be niche, yeah. If you don't know the thing exists, that doesn't mean you don't use it. Modern OSes adjust scaling automatically for the screen DPI. Otherwise using configs like Retina MacBook + 1440p displays, or 4k laptop + 4k external display would be very pai…

To be honest I've never seen scaling done well. I just plugged my 32" 4k monitor into my 16" windows work laptop (both 4k), and things on the monitor are too big, even after tweaking! I have everything set to 100% scaling because that's a low as you can put it. The defaults had my laptop at 250% (!!!) and external monitor at 150%, which makes the laptop in particular look like some cramped 800x600 monitor out of 1995…

I don't know what to say here because exact scaling parameters are very subjective, but personally I find 250% scaling for 4k@16" okayish? I use 175% for 1440p@14", and 125% for 4k@27", which is slightly smaller than what Windows suggested you.

When I had my previous laptop, it had 100% for 4k@16" in Linux by default, and it was causing me a pain in the eyes. Switched to 200% back then, because fractional scaling in Ubuntu wasn't working well.

I'm not sure if it's possible to have scaling less than 100%, I just never thought to make things smaller, not bigger.

Re: The technical merits of Wayland are mostly irrelevant

#163

This might be a hot take, but you'll have to take X from my cold, dead hands. Or at least until things start breaking, or maybe until Wayland has e.g. stellar HDR support and I'll get a nice OLED monitor. Otherwise, no dice. I know that X is a crusty old spawn of Cthulhu; but honestly, I don't really care? It just works! I set up my system 10 years ago with how the UI works (including my window manager), and it stabl…

Is screen tear something that can be avoided in X11? That's mostly the only reason why I bother with Wayland

Yes.

I don't have any screen tearing on X11.

Although I can't tell you if that's how it was out-of-box, or if I set it up to be tear free, because... I don't remember.

Remember the part about things just working and me not having to do anything with this for many years? Yep, that's why. (:

Re: The technical merits of Wayland are mostly irrelevant

#164
Wayland is pretty much the only shiny new Linux tech I don't want. I have no desire to use sysvinit or non PipeWire sound or anything but NetworkManager.... but Wayland is a step backwards in features, because they delegate things to individual implementations.

What about screen sharing? What about global shortcuts? What about -X style network transparency?

I am not a fan of fake standards that aren't actually standards and leave important stuff undefined, inviting everyone to just leave out those things.

Re: The technical merits of Wayland are mostly irrelevant

#165
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if I were running multiple monitors each with different scaling factors and refresh rates, but that sounds pretty niche So basically you're calling almost every modern laptop + external screen setup "pretty niche". I wonder whose post is more silly.

Virtually every modern laptop with a dGPU runs Nvidia, so Wayland is still a no-go there too. (And no, if Nouveau is an option for you then you probably wouldn't have a dGPU in the first place.)

Most Wayland compositors work on Nvidia now, though

Re: The technical merits of Wayland are mostly irrelevant

#166

This might be a hot take, but you'll have to take X from my cold, dead hands. Or at least until things start breaking, or maybe until Wayland has e.g. stellar HDR support and I'll get a nice OLED monitor. Otherwise, no dice. I know that X is a crusty old spawn of Cthulhu; but honestly, I don't really care? It just works! I set up my system 10 years ago with how the UI works (including my window manager), and it stabl…

Yeah the blog OP is replying to is just silly. > Unless your workflow (and hardware) comes from 20+ years ago, you have almost no reason to stick with Xorg, especially as it continues to get worse and worse when the user experience relies on newer and newer features. My workflow is probably 20+ years old because not much has changed with software in the last 20 years. My computer is getting close to 10 years old. It…

> I'm not worried about running a keylogger or something that's going to surreptitiously capture my screen. It's not a major issue. It's not an issue at all. Never comes up.

Yeah, I don't get this argument. If a process can already run on my account then I'm screwed anyway. It's trivial to e.g. do some bash magic to transparently replace `sudo` to get access to root without me knowing, and then hook into e.g. evdev to keylog every keystroke regardless of whether it's on Wayland or X11.

Unless you sandbox everything (and no one does that on a normal desktop) Wayland's extra "security" guarantees are completely useless in practice, because they're trivial to bypass.

Re: The technical merits of Wayland are mostly irrelevant

#167
post #60

Wayland is the poster child for a rewrite that tries to be 'simple' and in doing so over-complicates things by under specification. Other commenters have mentioned that usability extension issues but I wanted to discuss my experience as someone who maintains their own wayland client (for drawterm: https://github.com/9front/drawterm ). There are plenty of technical differences between how KDE, Gnome, and Wlroots that…

I've warmed up to the idea that X11 needed a replacement after implementing (parts of) the protocol in Ruby (yes, I want to cause myself pain, clearly).

It's obtuse in a way that might have made sense when first invented (e.g. slotting an arbitrary request byte in the request header for some requests because there's a free byte otherwise used for padding so that the request length can be 16-bit aligned) is just pointlessly stingy now. The way length fields and the lists the refer to might not be adjacent in a packet, likewise.

But then I looked at the Render extension, and realised the problem was less the original protocol - it's easily extended after all - but that the people writing the extensions were so steeped in the same thinking of overgeneralising.

E.g. the Render extension very sensibly - given we've mostly settled on a few formats - dictates a set of visuals that must be supported. Surely then they provide an easy way of obtaining it? No. You need to retrieve every single visual supported by the server. Surely the Render extension will just default to force clients to apply some godawful slow path if they want some bizarro format? No. But they'll at least make it easy to get the default formats everyone actually wants? No - you call a function that provides values for all the visual fields, such as depth, mask for red, green and blue bits and many other things, and then checks that mask and a bitfield determining whether you care about those things, against every single visual reported by the server.

After seeing that - dozens of lines of code whose sole purpose is to work around the fact that the server extension written by the same people doesn't tell you the ids of the required visuals - I went looking at the Wayland spec in utter disgust.

You could easily "fix" X in a aggressive but gradual way in a lot less time than Wayland - the biggest argument for Wayland is not technical, but not being mired in that culture, I thought.

Only to find it's pretty much equally obtuse and overwrought, only in different ways...

I expect to have to bite the bullet and move to Wayland eventually, but it feels very much like a lateral move with no upsides I care about and a lot of efforts that'll make me swear (I used bspwm, there's no port, so I'll need to figure out which of the tiling compositors are somewhat close enough, especially given I heavily rely on bspc to change bspwm's behaviour) and I'll resent every part of it.

I really I wish we got a timeline where someone instead aggressively deprecated old functionality from Xorg in several rounds of purges.

Re: The technical merits of Wayland are mostly irrelevant

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah the blog OP is replying to is just silly. > Unless your workflow (and hardware) comes from 20+ years ago, you have almost no reason to stick with Xorg, especially as it continues to get worse and worse when the user experience relies on newer and newer features. My workflow is probably 20+ years old because not much has changed with software in the last 20 years. My computer is getting close to 10 years old. It…

> I'm not worried about running a keylogger or something that's going to surreptitiously capture my screen. It's not a major issue. It's not an issue at all. Never comes up. Yeah, I don't get this argument. If a process can already run on my account then I'm screwed anyway. It's trivial to e.g. do some bash magic to transparently replace `sudo` to get access to root without me knowing, and then hook into e.g. evdev t…

You may be right that Linux is a security disaster even with X11 replaced by Wayland, but ChromeOS is pretty secure and uses Wayland whereas I can't imagine its ever choosing to use X11.

Re: The technical merits of Wayland are mostly irrelevant

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not worried about running a keylogger or something that's going to surreptitiously capture my screen. It's not a major issue. It's not an issue at all. Never comes up. Yeah, I don't get this argument. If a process can already run on my account then I'm screwed anyway. It's trivial to e.g. do some bash magic to transparently replace `sudo` to get access to root without me knowing, and then hook into e.g. evdev t…

You may be right that Linux is a security disaster even with X11 replaced by Wayland, but ChromeOS is pretty secure and uses Wayland whereas I can't imagine its ever choosing to use X11.

> You may be right that Linux is a security disaster

How so? If you run a program that you trust, like "ls", "vim", "firefox", "cat" or "rm", then you absolutely want it to be able to access all your data. That's the whole point of running a program: to read/write your data.

If, for some reason, you want to run a program that you don't trust, you can run it easily inside a container or a virtual machine.

I fail to see how this is a "security disaster". It seems very sane to me. How could it be even better?

Re: The technical merits of Wayland are mostly irrelevant

#170
post #7

Very true. Wayland is now stable enough to be used in a lot of "production" environments and I've been using Sway as my desktop for years , and yet still, there is work left to be done: - Hardware support. NVIDIA support is spotty still. Easily the biggest issue IMO, though it's better than it was. - Network operation. X will always be better here because it was designed to be (at least with toolkits that can still t…

> Network operation. X will always be better here because it was designed to be Excuse me, but BS. At least for anything of actual relevance. X11 networking works okay for stuff that looks like a classic X11 app. That's things like xcalc. Any modern text editor, web browser, or anything else is going to be dog slow. X11 has a bad networking protocol that's way too latency sensitive, and as a result is nigh unusuable…

Your experience doesn't match with other people's.

Remote X over fast low latency networks is fine, a near local experience-- even running things like firefox or gimp. (And for classic apps it's indistinguishable from local). The wayland world alternatives like using RDP are painful to the point of usability even over a 10gigbit network, peg the cpu... and are really only good for rescuing something that's stuck or providing a bit of tech support.

Yes, over a high latency network remote X is sucky but seldom much worse than RDP.

Post reply on HN