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

Wayland set the Linux Desktop back by 10 years?

omar.yt

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 502 posts

Re: Wayland set the Linux Desktop back by 10 years?

#281

Post by yehat »

happymellon wrote: post #266
Ferret7446 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of distros that have xlibre packages for something that ostensibly doesn't compile. I wouldn't trust the reason given by the people who have said that they're trying to kill Xorg for why they're rejecting patches from someone trying to improve Xorg

> There are a lot of distros that have xlibre packages for something that ostensibly doesn't compile. No one says xlibre doesn't compile, but good attempt at a distraction. Have you considered invading a country as an alternative way to distract from terrible views?

Wow here it shows who's politically motivated and like it or not Xlibre probably felt the same way. Some people cannot sleep or chill if it is not theirs world view.

Re: Wayland set the Linux Desktop back by 10 years?

#282

Post by DeathArrow »

For me the fragmentation in Linux world is puzzling.

I like to have one way to do things when it comes to the OS. So everything is optimized to work together and I don't have to mix and match parts and to learn different stuff that do the same thing.

I just want my OS to get out of my way and let me run my software.

Re: Wayland set the Linux Desktop back by 10 years?

#283

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

000ooo000 wrote: post #54
PunchyHamster wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is fine. X11 needed fresh start. But they also failed to learn any lessons from X, just assuming "if X11 did it it must've been a bad idea, let's do it differently". X11 did chalk many lines of abstractions in absolutely the right places, it's just the implementation was crufty in places, and just not designed for modern hardware in some other places, while wayland just tried to kick as much as possible to the W…

>now every WM have to repeat that work wlroots?

That helps, but you still have to - at a bare minimum - wire up all the functionality. My pet example is trying out a new wlroots compositor and discovering that it has no way to change keyboard layout because it doesn't use that code from the library yet.

Re: Wayland set the Linux Desktop back by 10 years?

#284

Post by messe »

Ferret7446 wrote: post #180
palata wrote: post #17

Disclaimer: I don't have any skin in this game, I was fine with X11 and I am fine with Wayland, and I actually think it's nice to have both (and more, like Xlibre I think?). I understand complaints about systemd, I don't understand the complaints about Wayland. This whole article sounds like a big rant and doesn't seem to bring much information. > I also don't care for the "security" argument when parts of the core r…

> Who is forced to use it? The people forcing Wayland are also the people who own and are trying to kill Xorg (stated explicitly) and also trying to cancel people who fork or implement their own X11. So yes, they are actively trying to prevent people from using X11

> also trying to cancel people who fork

Care to elaborate on that accusation? I have a suspicion you're referring to Xlibre.

Re: Wayland set the Linux Desktop back by 10 years?

#285

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

jmclnx wrote: post #29
MBCook wrote: post #6

The major comitters and maintainers of X decided it was a lost cause and unfixable. Were they just supposed to keep working on the massive pile of hacks they felt needed abandoning? They did what they thought was best. You hate it. Fine. Do you think things would be better if they kept working on the unfixable mess? I trust them to know what was going on better than random commenters.

I believe most of the original committers and maintainers of X are long gone, if still around they could very well be in their late 70s and 80s. I would agree if you said many of the Wayland Developers people started with Xfee86. But I think the 'complexity' of X has to do with the fact no one of this generation fully understand why X11 did things the way they did, so Wayland was started. That is OK, but here we are.…

> I think if the Wayland people told the GPU Companies (like Nvidia) they will not support your hardware unless you release full specs, they would be further along.

You realize nvidia managed to ship proprietary drivers for linux, right? They really don't need the support

Re: Wayland set the Linux Desktop back by 10 years?

#286

Post by deno »

kennethrc wrote: post #206
BowBun wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who is forced to use it? Just use X11, as you said (many times) you do already. This is my understanding of his actual concern - Linux corps are pushing Wayland as a replacement for X11 when it is full of issues. Anecdotally my experience was the same. I'm a dev so I'm fine in a terminal, but trying to switch to KDE actually sent me BACK to Windows. Basic windowing stuff just does not work, and like the OP says, to…

> Even something as simple as alt-tabbing lagged for seconds on an overpowered machine. This may not be KDE's fault; I tracked these kinds of issues down to some bad tunable defaults. I came up with this: ---- cat /etc/sysctl.d/50-usb-responsiveness.conf # # Attempt to keep large USB transfers from locking the system (kswapd0) # vm.swappiness = 1 vm.dirty_background_ratio = 5 vm.dirty_ratio = 5 vm.extfrag_threshold =…

You really only need dirty_ratio/bytes and dirty_background_ratio/bytes set to something lower than default. It also makes your progress bars show values closer to reality, especially when copying from fast to slow media.

Some distros already do set lower defaults, e.g. pop os:

https://github.com/pop-os/default-settings/blob/master_noble...

Bazzite: https://github.com/ublue-os/bazzite/blob/main/system_files/d...

Re: Wayland set the Linux Desktop back by 10 years?

#287

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

DeathArrow wrote: post #282

For me the fragmentation in Linux world is puzzling. I like to have one way to do things when it comes to the OS. So everything is optimized to work together and I don't have to mix and match parts and to learn different stuff that do the same thing. I just want my OS to get out of my way and let me run my software.

It's actually very simple; it's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law in practice. There is no "Linux" operating system, only an endless assortment of independent people and sometimes companies, each of which builds whatever they want, and sometimes they assemble some of those pieces into a working operating system. Every time someone makes a distro, they have their own vision and they run with it. Every time someone doesn't like a component, they fork it or make their own thing. There is nobody who can impose a single order, because it's just a loose collection of separate groups, several of which are actively feuding at any given moment.

Re: Wayland set the Linux Desktop back by 10 years?

#289

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

MBCook wrote: post #138
JoshTriplett wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But they also failed to learn any lessons from X Why do you believe that the developers of X failed to learn lessons from X when developing the replacement of X? Perhaps they learned lessons from X and decided to build it differently as a result?

Which is exactly what they did, as I understand it. For example Wayland supports far more than just “generic computer screen”. I’ve heard it was designed to be able to handle systems either multiple very different displays. Like maybe a normal screen and an e-paper display. I remember reading an article that mentioned the mess of screens in current cars would actually fit Wayland well. Anyway, turns out computers rea…

> For example Wayland supports far more than just “generic computer screen”. I’ve heard it was designed to be able to handle systems either multiple very different displays. Like maybe a normal screen and an e-paper display.

The other common example is that wayland is well-suited to AR/VR 3D compositing, and X... isn't.

> I remember reading an article that mentioned the mess of screens in current cars would actually fit Wayland well.

It had better be well suited to cars, seeing as how it was significantly made for and by car companies. (I hear, at least; I'm told that it was significantly pushed forward precisely by companies developing automotive displays)

Post reply on HN