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

121–130 of 208 posts

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#121

Post by NekkoDroid »

djbusby wrote: post #113
nolist_policy wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not true though, XWayland is better maintained than native Xorg. It is here to stay for backwards compatibility. Disclaimer: I run ChromeOS and Wayland just works.

Oh, I've got a Chromebook; didn't know it was all Wayland. I'm thinking that it "just works" there because G has more resources to patch all the needed features. More resources than KDE or Gnome or others have available.

I assume its mostly because how you said they can do it and the impact is really only limited to their system AND chromebooks are to my knowledge way more focused of a UX than what Wayland needs to be able to support so they can be even more opinionated about what they support and how

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#122

Post by idle_zealot »

jxdxbx wrote: post #68
idle_zealot wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately that's not avoidable. The duplication exists because of disagreement regarding how things should be done. The alternative is not "my preferred project gets all the resources" but "my preferred project doesn't exist and all the resources go to some fundamentally flawed project that I don't want to use". See Windows or macOS for how that turns out.

Windows and macOS are both more popular and usable than desktop Linux so I think it turns out fine.

More popular, yes. Usability is subjective. The lack of tiling window management or decent package management on either of the most popular two desktop operating systems renders them unusable to me, so I'm quite thankful that the ecosystem is fragmented enough to cater to my apparently niche tastes.

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#123

Post by pkkm »

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…

Oh, that's just one of many such cases. There's also the history of how it took years of requests, and pressure from Valve, for Wayland devs to consider letting the user disable VSync. Or the disaster around the UI scale, which until recently would be rounded up to the nearest integer, passed to the client, and the client's rendered bitmap would then be downscaled by the compositor to match the actual scale set by the user. Because who needs performance, accurate display of images, or subpixel antialiasing of fonts? Fortunately, they have relented on this too and a fractional scaling protocol got merged. Unfortunately, it basically obsoletes a core protocol field.

It's a whole repeating pattern: Wayland starts out with a weird and inflexible design -> Wayland devs try to make the whole Linux ecosystem conform -> they start backtracking after years of pressure, but now they have to add cruft/workarounds to the protocol. Happened to forced VSync, integer-only UI scaling, the compositor-driven render loop with no visibility hints, client-side decorations only... At this rate, Wayland will be full of obsolete cruft before it even overtakes X11 in popularity.

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#124

Post by askonomm »

idle_zealot wrote: post #35
MuffinFlavored wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linux in general... Think of the efforts wasted in duplicate/overlapping functionality between maintenance + development of distributions, package managers, shells, compilers, C libraries, desktop environments, etc.

Unfortunately that's not avoidable. The duplication exists because of disagreement regarding how things should be done. The alternative is not "my preferred project gets all the resources" but "my preferred project doesn't exist and all the resources go to some fundamentally flawed project that I don't want to use". See Windows or macOS for how that turns out.

Unfortunately the fragmentation can be felt quite strong. A thousand different Linux "flavours", none of them work even remotely as well as MacOS or Windows does. Most Linux distros have never heard of decent user experience design, or consistency in design, and with everybody and their mom making a new linux distro every week it just seems more like a toy than something to use professionally (other than as a server, I guess).

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#125

Post by mrkstu »

Arnavion wrote: post #117
jwells89 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine a program that utilizes several separate windows for palettes. If the program has no way to specify where to place those palettes, the user is going to be presented with a ton of palettes piled on top of their document window and that they’ll have to sort that out themselves, rather than a neatly organized immediately usable workspace. That’s not really an acceptable user experience no matter how you slice it…

>Imagine a program that utilizes several separate windows for palettes. One way this can work is: When the program starts up on first install with a brand new config, all those palettes are part of the program window. Then as the user decides to undock them one by one, they are removed from the main program window and a new window is drawn containing that palette. So the user isn't presented with "a ton of palettes";…

Of course the order of operations here was to break everything first and then start addressing the issues they feel like addressing when and if they get around to it.

Kind of a real FU way of trying to move things forward...

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#126

Post by askonomm »

idle_zealot wrote: post #122
jxdxbx wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Windows and macOS are both more popular and usable than desktop Linux so I think it turns out fine.

More popular, yes. Usability is subjective. The lack of tiling window management or decent package management on either of the most popular two desktop operating systems renders them unusable to me, so I'm quite thankful that the ecosystem is fragmented enough to cater to my apparently niche tastes.

I would say that the popularity indicates the higher usability. People find Windows and MacOS easier to use, with less random problems. I also don't understand what you mean by lack of package management? Homebrew on MacOS is very decent, on Windows you have Scoop/WinGet which work very well. Either way both are much less fragmented than the Linux flatpak/snap/.deb/AppImage/.tar.gz nightmare which a regular user will never be able to figure out. I swear it's like Linux advocates have never even talked to a normal person, and are somehow under the illusion that Linux is a easy-to-use, user-friendly OS, which .. it's not. Any OS that requires you to know CLI basics to install regular apps is not a user-friendly OS (Chrome gives a .deb, but on some recent distros it cannot be installed by clicking on it! IntelliJ gives .tar.gz, which, well, good luck figuring that out, and others give AppImage, which needs chmod+x!).

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#127

Post by Arnavion »

mrkstu wrote: post #125
Arnavion wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Imagine a program that utilizes several separate windows for palettes. One way this can work is: When the program starts up on first install with a brand new config, all those palettes are part of the program window. Then as the user decides to undock them one by one, they are removed from the main program window and a new window is drawn containing that palette. So the user isn't presented with "a ton of palettes";…

Of course the order of operations here was to break everything first and then start addressing the issues they feel like addressing when and if they get around to it. Kind of a real FU way of trying to move things forward...

Yes, normally when you make a new thing you start with a small base and then gradually make changes to it, instead of adding the whole kitchen sink from the start and defeating the purpose of making the new thing in the first place.

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#128

Post by charcircuit »

fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #105
Lammy wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also don't care about malicious applications. I don't need to be protected from myself and didn't ask anyone to try.

Yeah, I find the creep of web app security mentality into the desktop to be a disaster. I want to be able to easily snoop on and control my GUI and I absolutely don’t want some display system to decide it knows better than me about this sort of thing.

>web app security mentality

Having good security is essential to having a good app platform. You can see a real disaster in how malware operated on Windows a couple decades ago.

>I want to be able to easily snoop on and control my GUI

That don't mean that every random program needs to be able to. If a program is to be able to snoop, it needs to explicitly given the ability to do so.

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#129

Post by marcodiego »

LtWorf wrote: post #118
saghm wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not ever having to touch Xorg config files to get things working is pretty big advantage to me at least.

So let me know how do you write 5 languages properly…

I write 5 languages properly.

Eu escrevo 5 línguas adequadamente.

J'écris cinq langues bien.

Escribo 5 idiomas correctamente.

Scrivo correttamente 5 lingue.

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#130

Post by dzaima »

fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #105
Lammy wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also don't care about malicious applications. I don't need to be protected from myself and didn't ask anyone to try.

Yeah, I find the creep of web app security mentality into the desktop to be a disaster. I want to be able to easily snoop on and control my GUI and I absolutely don’t want some display system to decide it knows better than me about this sort of thing.

I'd perhaps say that security can be a good idea, but it needs to be done well for it to be so. And not at all implementing a potentially-abusable feature, while counting as "secure", is absolutely not doing it well.
Post reply on HN