151–160 of 208 posts
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…
Quoting @stenzek > But Wayland is just broken, and everyone would rather sit around arguing with each other instead of actually addressing the design flaws. > It's not the first time such a proposal has been put forward. Something that developers need for their applications to work properly on WL (particularly multi-window applications), and it gets vetoed. Every other OS manages this fine. But apparently we're in th…
Honestly at this stage, this stuff starts to feel like FUD. Every computer I use -- work laptop, personal desktop, personal laptop -- uses Wayland at this stage. Two are on Sway, one's on KDE. I cannot think of any show-stopping bugs I've encountered for... years. It was a lot more rough 3 years ago when I first switched over (because the laptop I had then was HiDPI, but the screen I attached it to was standard, and…
Multi-window programs, for example, are difficult to get working directly on Wayland. The issue has been brought up several times [1][2]. And it's not a particularly uncommon UI-style.
For example, most video production software I've worked with allows you to popout certain components into separate windows so that you can, for example, have your timeline, which may have many tracks taking up lots of vertical space, on a separate monitor from the preview viewport. This is a really nice feature. And the lack of its presence is one of the things I really dislike about DaVinci Resolve, despite it being an otherwise great tool with some of the best, if not the best, colorgrading utilities.
This isn't something unique and niche to video production either, though; lots of photo editing, audio production, 3D modelling, CAD software, and other scientific/engineering applications have similar UI. Wayland makes it difficult, though, because there isn't a good way to request or suggest the kind of positioning these programs need [1].
Anyway, that said, I, too, have lived with a mostly Wayland desktop for a few years without too many issues, even as someone who doesn't have the most "typical" workflows or needs. So, to an extent, I think you're not wrong; the idea that Wayland is *entirely* unusable is, obviously, not true.
But again, key point, *mostly* Wayland; without Xwayland or similar, I think it'd be genuinely unusable for me and likely many others.
While the compatibility layers genenerally work well, and in many ways, still provide many of the benefits of Wayland, like security, I don't think it's unreasonable to want a better, native way to deal with some of these issues so that people can drop the additional legacy abstraction.
---
[1]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland-protocols/-/m...
[2]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland-protocols/-/i...
Related:
- https://github.com/PCSX2/pcsx2/issues/10065
- https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/8692
---
EDIT:
I think it's also worth noting that just because /our/ Wayland experiences haven't been too bad doesn't mean that its the case for everyone.
As I, and several others, mentioned in other comments, there are several implementations of Wayland compositors, for example. Our particular choice of components/desktop environments might be fine, but others may be more broken or intentionally lacking support for useful/semi-necessary "optional" extensions to the protocol.
It'd be one thing to intentionally pick a bad implementation as a user and then complain about it. But sometimes, people aren't aware they're using Wayland in the first place, let alone which compositor they're using.
As a developer, even if you don't care for a particular implementation, unless you do as PCSX2 did, you'll still likely need to think about everyone elses' quirks as well, because too many of your users will also be users of whatever is most problematic -- e.g., GNOME is very popular and also has/had been one of the more annoying ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Due to the headline, it has dawned on me just now that the Steam Deck uses X11. Been using PCSX2 successfully on it for several months now. I never thought about whether it was using Wayland or X11 until reading this.
Steam Deck uses Wayland. It uses Xwayland to run X11 applications.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is the window manager going to handle the positioning in a scenario like multi-viewport? The user already conveyed their intent by dragging a window out of the application's viewport to create a new viewport, and Wayland is prohibiting the application from obeying the user.
I'm just trying to understand why ImGui needs to read and write window positions, because it's not immediately obvious from that paltry description. It sounds like you're describing a use case where it needs to be able to set the position of a new window relative to an existing window. So APIs to read the position of the current window and write the position of the new window are probably what they're looking for—tho…
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.
The hate is because the "Gnome developers" (and that's an unfair generalization on my part, but let's run with it anyway) have a long history of saying This is the One True Way to do various things, and unlike most other Linux DEs, Gnome has positioned itself as a general-purpose system, and it has the most commercial backing of any other DE. There have even been cases where every other DE wants some Wayland thing one way but Gnome devs want it another way. Gnome developers go so far as to attempt to rationalize why other use cases or desires aren't even valid (which is offensive).
In other words, the hating on Gnome isn't necessarily that Gnome itself is inferior to other systems, it's that some Gnome developers (and many interactions when it comes to standardization and interoperability) are condescending, dismissive, and they insist on imposing their (technical) will on the whole Linux GUI ecosystem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
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…
And then given the rate at which protocol changes happen, it will take YEARS to do anything.
Sebastian Wick said this:
> If we add a protocol like this, there is no going back. We will be stuck with it forever and have to live with this pain for the next 30 years when someone finally manages to write a successor to wayland that's willing to break backwards compatibility again like wayland did.
They're looking for "perfection for the next 100 years" instead of "good enough for now".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Maliciousness like wanting to open a window at a given location? That's seriously bad behavior and I hope the offenders will be stopped promptly and prosecuted. I didn't think evil like this existed in the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> the wayland devs are the xorg devs Are we sure _this_ isn't the problem?