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

PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 208 posts

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#91

Post by gryn »

barkingcat wrote: post #26
OsrsNeedsf2P wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring the exponential pace Wayland has improved for end users in the last 36 months (see for example Plasma/Wayland Showstoppers[0]), would staying on X11 not be more of a sunk cost fallacy? There aren't even any Wayland alternatives with meaningful momentum [0] https://community.kde.org/index.php?title=Plasma/Wayland_Sho...

It's entirely possible that both suffer from sunk cost fallacy, and from that analysis there isn't a "better" or "more" sunk cost. It's already sunk, anything you sink further into it is a waste.

So what's your suggestion start a 3rd initiative ?

It will suffer the same same problems that Wayland has. the problem is that X is flawed at the design and level and whatever you propose that fix those design issues will face the same type of push-back from the communities that don't like it because it's not the way their grandpa taught them to do things.

keep in mind the wayland devs are the xorg devs that gave up on that project because how hopeless it was to fix things around.

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#92

Post by esjeon »

barkingcat wrote: post #26
OsrsNeedsf2P wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring the exponential pace Wayland has improved for end users in the last 36 months (see for example Plasma/Wayland Showstoppers[0]), would staying on X11 not be more of a sunk cost fallacy? There aren't even any Wayland alternatives with meaningful momentum [0] https://community.kde.org/index.php?title=Plasma/Wayland_Sho...

It's entirely possible that both suffer from sunk cost fallacy, and from that analysis there isn't a "better" or "more" sunk cost. It's already sunk, anything you sink further into it is a waste.

Right. X11 is just old and widely used. Wayland is entrenched in its own bad decisions. It used to be one legacy and one new thing, but now it's one legacy and another dragging its own legacy.

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#93

Post by danaris »

jahewson wrote: post #87
v1ne wrote: post #63

This discussion about monitor-aware positioning of windows relative to another is a real treasure trove: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland-protocols/-/m... One post summarizes it pretty well. Jehan says: > As GIMP maintainer, do you want me to open a separate report so that we explain our use case on multiple windows, as well as future planned use cases? I find it fascinating. There is this supposed succ…

I don’t know, deciding not to support multi-window mode seems ok to me. It’s a relic of the past and dragging around all that baggage often isn’t worth it.

...Now, I haven't used Linux regularly in a long time, so I may be misunderstanding, but unless "multi-window mode" means something very different than what it sounds like, it seems ludicrously arrogant to be declaring it a "relic of the past". Do you think every application should use no more than a single window, and fit its content inside that? Rather than being able to have a window for the main content, a tool palette, an information window, etc?

Just because that's the only kind of application you can imagine wanting to use or make doesn't mean that should be the only thing allowed.

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#94

Post by Gigachad »

LtWorf wrote: post #48
Gigachad wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ready for me in that it works better than X11 on my hardware. No it's not flawless like MacOS and to some extent Windows, but it's certainly an improvement over what we had.

Works flawlessly if you've never edited a Xorg config file… if you did, there is no way to keep using the same configuration

I’ve used Linux for over 10 years and I don’t even know what an xorg config file is. I suspect most users don’t. I wouldn’t expect my desktop environment to require any config.

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#95

Post by pshirshov »

uneekname wrote: post #86
anaisbetts wrote: post #42

GNOME as a platform (and by extension, all of their associated projects which unfortunately includes the Wayland protocol) has such a bizarre worldview - it's like they think they can treat the Desktop OS, with all of its user expectations and existing working software, and remake it as a bigger iPadOS, to no one's actual benefit. What do I get in return for having to give up all of these things that used to work? It…

It's cool if GNOME doesn't work well for you, but for me it's near-perfect. For sure it's rough around the edges, but what isn't? GNOME helps me get work done, stays out of my way until I need it, etc. I see so much general hate towards GNOME on HN, and it's really annoying. If it doesn't work for you, great, I'd like to hear why. But saying it's "strictly downsides" simply isn't true, nor productive.

1) It doesn't properly support fractional scaling, crashes frequnently on multi-head setups with fractional scaling.

2) They completely removed the keyboard shortcuts css mechanism, so I can't have emacs-like text navigation everywhere

3) They even removed local shortcut customization capabilities and replaced corresponding dialogs with useless shortcut reference window

4) There is no working systray implementation

5) their community is extremely hostile, seemingly they sadistically enjoy telling users to "fuck off, we kno better"

I was a happy gnome user since 2005 until ~2017 but this shitshow is not bearable anymore.

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#96

Post by Arnavion »

LtWorf wrote: post #57
DistractionRect wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically Wayland only supports a subset of what X11 could do. It's more scoped and does a good job with what it's supposed to do. That said, the rest of the functionality is now an exercise for desktop environments, and they can (and do) things differently.

> does a good job with what it's supposed to do. And anything that people used to do on X11, they are told by zealots that they are wrong and aren't supposed to do that. For example: Not losing all the work every time your windows manager crashes remapping keys Use xinput to change parameters of their input devices (libinput dropped most configuration options present with evdev) Global shortcuts tunnelling over ssh

>Not losing all the work every time your windows manager crashes

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37509703

>remapping keys

>Use xinput to change parameters of their input devices (libinput dropped most configuration options present with evdev)

Up to the compositor.

>Global shortcuts

Also up to the compositor. Was added to xdp in https://github.com/flatpak/xdg-desktop-portal/blob/main/data... so it's up to the compositor's xdp impl to provide it. It was created by a KDE dev so I assume KDE implements it at least.

>tunnelling over ssh

https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mstoeckl/waypipe

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#97

Post by esjeon »

Wayland is good until you hit the corner cases that the dev decided to abandon without leaving any alternatives. We can always have extra protocol that can be optionally enabled, but good luck with standardizing that. It feels as if Wayland people are abusing their committee to keep Wayland as-is, instead of extending it. The protocol dashboard[1] doesn't look exactly good.

[1]: https://wayland.app/protocols/

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#98

Post by charcircuit »

asveikau wrote: post #41
Laaas wrote: post #20

FWIW all the reasons seem like an aversion to complying with how Wayland works. Yes, you can't position windows absolutely, but that's because you're not supposed to do that. In any case I don't see how being able to position windows is relevant at all to PCXS2's functioning on Wayland? Just don't position windows if you can't? It's an incredibly dumb reason not to support the protocol. Xorg is mostly unmaintained AF…

> Yes, you can't position windows absolutely, but that's because you're not supposed to do that. I think about 40 years of GUI APIs disagree with this.

40 years ago people did not care about malicous applications, nor did they care about jank, nor did they have the hindsights that we do know. Those API only still exist because of backwards compatibility.

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#99

Post by dzaima »

Laaas wrote: post #20

FWIW all the reasons seem like an aversion to complying with how Wayland works. Yes, you can't position windows absolutely, but that's because you're not supposed to do that. In any case I don't see how being able to position windows is relevant at all to PCXS2's functioning on Wayland? Just don't position windows if you can't? It's an incredibly dumb reason not to support the protocol. Xorg is mostly unmaintained AF…

> FWIW all the reasons seem like an aversion to complying with how Wayland works.

The absolute last thing you should want from a platform is to have to "comply" with its weird decisions and assumptions on what people will or won't want to do (especially when people clearly do want and already are doing said things).

> In any case I don't see how being able to position windows is relevant at all to PCXS2's functioning on Wayland? Just don't position windows if you can't?

Cause users expect it to happen and complain when it doesn't anyway: https://github.com/PCSX2/pcsx2/issues/9064, https://github.com/PCSX2/pcsx2/issues/10065

From a user point-of-view Wayland is perhaps at a level of nitpicks of problems to some extent (haven't used it myself), but from a developer point-of-view it's, plain and simply, incomplete, with its refusal to support trivial things possible on X11 & Windows & macOS (i.e. everything else).

(not a PCSX2 user/dev, just searched for the issues; for reference, I've had the displeasure of writing code directly interfacing with X11 and so wish death to X11 as soon as possible, but wayland's still a horribly-opinionated mess)

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#100

Post by bsder »

Zambyte wrote: post #65
jdlyga wrote: post #7

Are we subjecting ourselves to the sunk cost fallacy with Wayland? It's been "almost ready" for 6 or 7 years at this point.

I think it's more interesting how Wayland has worked fine for me on AMD, Intel, and Nvidia for the last 4 years on my personal machines and work machines, and yet here we are still talking about if it works or not.

If I simply plug and unplug my laptop from the dock, my windows wind up randomly scattered between both laptop and monitor. Is that considered "works"?

Lots of people have lots of complaints. I, myself, have more than a few.

I'll go further. The fundamental problem is that Wayland CAN NOT be fixed. The underlying design architecture is simply not correct for modern hardware and its abstractions.

The problem is that a GUI is such an enormous pile of work that nobody can arise to compete with QT and GTK. Both of those toolkits are 20+ years old and desperately need to be redone from the ground up.

And, it's worse than that globally. Mobile/Web GUI and Desktop GUI have fundamentally different abstractions. Yet, because a GUI is such a huge pile of code, nobody wants to have separate GUIs for Desktop and Mobile/Web.

This is why something like Electron exists. No one wants any of the dumbass GUI toolkits--not Windows, not macOS and certainly not Gtk or Qt.

And, yes, I pile Mobile and Web together. Most people now interact with Web via their phone. This is painful to me, but it is simply reality.

Post reply on HN