Wayland lacks a crutch to work around broken multi-monitor handling in composit
PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support
11–20 of 208 posts
Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support
#12Actions like this will just hurt Wayland in the long run. It needs more users, and for that more applications that support it by default. No one will bring X11 to the level of Wayland, but someone might fix the existing Wayland problems.
Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support
#13> KDE isn't too buggy, GNOME is a complete disaster. What did the author mean by this? Don't know much about Wayland other than it is window system, replacing x11. KDE Plasma wiki[1] says, "KDE Plasma 5 is the fifth and current generation of the graphical workspaces environment created by KDE....KDE Plasma 5 uses the X Window System and Wayland." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KDE_Plasma_5
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.
Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support
#14Are we subjecting ourselves to the sunk cost fallacy with Wayland? It's been "almost ready" for 6 or 7 years at this point.
A way forward probably looks like a more feature-oriented fork of wayland than a do-over. The basic protocol is fine, it's just there's no sense of urgency to actually add important features to the standard, just a long design-by-comittee process which bogs down progress and frustrates developers and users.
Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support
#15Are we subjecting ourselves to the sunk cost fallacy with Wayland? It's been "almost ready" for 6 or 7 years at this point.
It's been ready ready for a long time now. It's been on by default in Fedora for a long time now and I've not experienced issues. Or at least fewer issues than with X11.
Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support
#16As long as the option to keep it turned on exists, I have no issues with this. It's one thing to move forward with a new stack, but it's a different thing to have it as default when it doesn't fully work
Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support
#17Wayland lacks a crutch to work around broken multi-monitor handling in composit
Side note: The Glider HN client makes it real easy to fat finger comments since the rewrite. No editing or deleting either. Sigh.
Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support
#18Are we subjecting ourselves to the sunk cost fallacy with Wayland? It's been "almost ready" for 6 or 7 years at this point.
It's been ready ready for a long time now. It's been on by default in Fedora for a long time now and I've not experienced issues. Or at least fewer issues than with X11.
Ready ready on what? Select hardware? I've thrown 4 regular off the shelf laptops at various DE's using Wayland and they all suck in various ways to the point that they're not even usable. Meanwhile I can throw Windows on all of them, and they work flawlessly. I'm quite tired of Linux guys saying their stuff works just fine, without mentioning how extremely limited is the hardware support to actually run any of those things, and judging from various forums, even if you have supported hardware, things break.
Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support
#19I'm not sure if it's funnier to see popular projects shunning wayland because it sucks or Linus looking to move kernel development away from an email based workflow because "it really isn't working anymore". There is such an insane amount of coping about both of those topics online.
Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support
#20FWIW 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 AFAIK.
See https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland-protocols/-/m... for the discussion on this