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

181–190 of 208 posts

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#181

Post by mort96 »

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";…

> 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.

What if the program doesn't want a single-window mode?

Or what if the work to support a single-window mode isn't considered to be worth it when the only people who care are the 0.01% of users who are on Linux and care that the program isn't Wayland-native?

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#182

Post by mort96 »

tannhaeuser wrote: post #51
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.

If you mean wayland compositors in general, that's more like 15 years according to [1]. For gnome's Mutter, it's 12 years: > Until they sort their s*t out, which is unlikely, since there's been very little progress over the last decade, just keep it disabled. Begging the question if Wayland itself is already antiquated and if its maintenance perspective is any better than X.org's. When lack of developer motivation to…

Lack of developer motivation to work on X is FAR from the only reason to leave it behind.

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#183

Post by Lammy »

charcircuit wrote: post #178
mcpackieh wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words you want to facilitate the bad user habits of Windows, iOS, Android, etc on the Linux desktop. Why do you even want to use the Linux desktop in the first place if you prefer those systems? Stick to what suits you instead of trying to assimilate the niche holdout systems like some sort desktop borg.

>you want to facilitate the bad user habits of Windows, iOS, Android, etc on the Linux desktop They are not bad user habits. They are only bad if the system is poorly designed. Unfortunately, the Linux desktop was poorly designed and the community is taking their sweet time to fix it. >Why do you even want to use the Linux desktop in the first place if you prefer those systems? It's just what I am used to using. I ac…

That all sounds like a better case for sandboxing our data rather than sandboxing our applications. The application-centrism is an iOS-ism (and now a Mac-ism, but I repeat myself) designed to facilitate Apple’s economic model where they are the sole gatekeeper of what a computer is allowed to do. People blindly copy that model into the Free Software world because Apple are Very Rich and so everything they do is automatically a good idea.

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#184

Post by imiric »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #28
haunter wrote: post #9

Further down: >... it is disabled on our release builds, because it's nothing but headaches for us, because of its broken by design nature causing issues for users. I listed a bunch of them in the OP as well. >We're sick of getting blamed for bugs in wayland compositors, while the various committees sit around arguing with each other, finally decide on standard ways of doing things after half a decade, then GNOME rui…

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.

That's both a blessing and a curse.

Yes, you can see it as wasted effort, but this is a key component of open source. Projects are built on the ideas and code of other projects. Sometimes this is a joint effort of a community, and sometimes it's done by a single developer who wants to try something different.

And this is great. There's growth in experimentation and failure, and trying new ideas. Not everything is going to succeed, and not every project will seem like it was worth the effort.

Ultimately, the user benefits by the overwhelming amount of choice of software, but it can also degrade the experience as projects might not be well maintained, unstable, and sometimes even abandoned.

This gives the opportunity for companies to step in and focus on supporting only a subset of software, which can lead to a better user experience, with the tradeoff of users having less choice, and being forced to use their computers in a specific way. These are two different approaches, and one is not inherently better than the other.

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#185

Post by saati »

bsder wrote: post #100
Zambyte wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The underlying design architecture is simply not correct for modern hardware and its abstractions

Could you elaborate on this?

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#187

Post by anaisbetts »

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.

My criticism isn't of GNOME en masse, but of this Attitude of "The users must be protected from apps and also from themselves". Other posts have outlined some of the concrete issues related to these decisions - usually when developers choose to intentionally remove functionality and knowingly cause user pain, it is in the service of some greater benefit; "This sucks, but users will have a net gain in the end"

My point is, the "net gain" simply isn't there - it's unclear if there is any gain at all from these decisions that plainly cause user difficulty!

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#188

Post by abrouwers »

gkbrk wrote: post #161
abrouwers wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny, I've used a wlroots environment recently (hyprland), and noticed tearing in animations that I don't have in gnome. So, I guess I'll take "janky" :-)

I thought tearing was not a thing on Wayland, and every frame was perfect.

Sorry, "tearing" isn't the correct word. I use the swipe gesture to "peak" at another workspace - if I have a video playing in that workspace, for example, it'll have artifacts in the playback while I'm mid-swipe. On gnome, the picture is perfect - I can swipe half-way, and the video is playing frame-perfect, as if the workspace was in focus.

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#189

Post by abrouwers »

askonomm wrote: post #141
abrouwers wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious, what sort of hardware issues? I don't have experience with Nvidia, but on Intel, my experience is equal on gnome (in fact, quite improved for the last couple of years - more fluid animations, less lag, etc). I've had this experience on thinkpads and most recently a framework laptop (though, vendor hardly makes a difference in this case).

Most of the issues are Linux auto-installing wrong graphic drivers, which then after a reboot results in a broken DE that doesn't work, and I don't want to spend my time manually verifying every update it tells me to install. I've had that in latest Ubuntu and Mint, to name a few. Other common issues I stumble upon is lack of audio driver support with either the audio not working at all, or working badly (no bass at…

OK, so general linux issues unspecific to wayland. I don't share your experience, but it's rather off-topic for this post.

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#190

Post by vetinari »

saati wrote: post #185
bsder wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The underlying design architecture is simply not correct for modern hardware and its abstractions Could you elaborate on this?

He can't, since the gfx part of Wayland is a thin, event-based abstraction over the modern hardware. It basically manages buffers between the hardware and clients.

The comparison to Qt, Gtk or Electron is also very wrong; it is an entirely different layer in the stack.

Post reply on HN