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

161–170 of 208 posts

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#161

Post by gkbrk »

abrouwers wrote: post #72
CuriousCosmic wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

KDE and GNOME roll their own wayland libs for their compositor. These have varying levels of quality with their own unique quirks and bugs. The "gold standard" for wayland at the moment is wlroots which is what basically every other wayland compositor uses. PCSX2 apparently works perfectly fine on wlroots based compositors but has some quirks with KDE wayland and is nigh unusable with GNOME's super janky wayland impl…

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.

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#162

Post by wtallis »

kevingadd wrote: post #155
wtallis wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The position being wrong isn't the only issue - if you can't programmatically reposition a window, you have to break the user's drag gesture into two drag gestures, one to 'pop out' the window and then the user has to find it and grab it again to move it.

That's about what happens every time I tear out a browser tab. It's not perfect, but definitely not the showstopper ImGui seems to regard it as.

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#163

Post by FengLengshun »

frio wrote: post #135
reisse wrote: post #33

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…

> Honestly at this stage, this stuff starts to feel like FUD.

I understand how you feel, now that I use Wayland everywhere myself. But I still remember when some things I used has issues and I have a whole list of a dozen of them.

Even now, using Wayland involves a LOT of compromise on my part. I'd have to stop my anger at CSD and issues with Global Menu a lot out of tiredness (still annoying - I have to run OBS in xwayland temporarily to access its remux menu). I have to contend with not having unattended remote desktop for my Linux devices. And I have to manually change how I set up fcitx5 instead of just setting it up in three lines in Home-Manager.

It's full of annoyances, but I'm tolerating it. Others... probably just don't have the patience, especially the devs who are supposed to fix these things for their app when they just want to focus on other things (especially multiplatform devs).

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#164

Post by mcpackieh »

devit wrote: post #140
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…

That's obviously the only correct approach. The concept of "window position on screen" makes no sense, since a compositor is allowed to display windows arbitrarily, and doesn't necessarily display them as 2D rectangles (for instance, they could be displayed in a VR environment at arbitrary 3D positions, or they could be warped arbitrarily, etc.). Also, the window layout belongs to the user and compositor and it would…

> The concept of "window position on screen" makes no sense, since a compositor is allowed to display windows arbitrarily, and doesn't necessarily display them as 2D rectangles (for instance, they could be displayed in a VR environment at arbitrary 3D positions, or they could be warped arbitrarily, etc.).

This is a poorly thought out objection (sounds more like a rationalization), neatly addressed here: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland-protocols/-/m...

> No problem! For window managers like this, it is perfectly legitimate to just ignore the client’s positioning requests. The API specifically mentions that clients should not rely on absolute placement to happen. It is merely advice to the compositor to choose a sensible initial spot to put a window. Same goes for weird form factor displays or specialized compositors, of course (but those may not even implement xdg-shell at all).

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#165

Post by mcpackieh »

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 think it's coming from developers with proprietary backgrounds who want to normalize the running of untrusted proprietary software on the Linux desktop, probably from some appstore with abysmal quality standards like Android and iOS. Contrast this mentality with sticking to Free software you downloaded from the official Debian repos.. why do I need to be protected against that software? I don't. These mobile-like desktop protection schemes are designed to facilitate mobile-like software consumption habits. Fuck all of that!

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#166

Post by mcpackieh »

charcircuit wrote: post #131
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.

Even if you are someone who wrote their whole user space from scratch and don't use the internet or open any files made by others, you are not representative of the larger userbase. A lot of people download random software or libraries that could be malware or even just buggy (eg. The time Steam unintentionally deleted user files). These people want to gain utility from all of this software without having to worry ab…

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.

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#167

Post by PH95VuimJjqBqy »

mcpackieh wrote: post #164
devit wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's obviously the only correct approach. The concept of "window position on screen" makes no sense, since a compositor is allowed to display windows arbitrarily, and doesn't necessarily display them as 2D rectangles (for instance, they could be displayed in a VR environment at arbitrary 3D positions, or they could be warped arbitrarily, etc.). Also, the window layout belongs to the user and compositor and it would…

> The concept of "window position on screen" makes no sense, since a compositor is allowed to display windows arbitrarily, and doesn't necessarily display them as 2D rectangles (for instance, they could be displayed in a VR environment at arbitrary 3D positions, or they could be warped arbitrarily, etc.). This is a poorly thought out objection (sounds more like a rationalization), neatly addressed here: https://gitla…

I'm pretty sure this has always been the case and is how the desktop standardization stuff works now in X11.

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#169

Post by phendrenad2 »

caslon wrote: post #132
reisse wrote: post #33

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…

Wayland already works, and is great for a lot of use cases; it's the default on distributions like Fedora, and has been for a while. It has nice things. For 90% of users, it's better than X in most ways that matter. Similar, but much less catastrophic, to how Android isn't great for blind users, or people who want to do low-latency audio production, Wayland is actually great for most users, despite not appealing to e…

> For 90% of users, it's better than X in most ways that matter

What ways specifically?

Re: PCSX2 Disables Wayland Support

#170

Post by mcpackieh »

PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #167
mcpackieh wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The concept of "window position on screen" makes no sense, since a compositor is allowed to display windows arbitrarily, and doesn't necessarily display them as 2D rectangles (for instance, they could be displayed in a VR environment at arbitrary 3D positions, or they could be warped arbitrarily, etc.). This is a poorly thought out objection (sounds more like a rationalization), neatly addressed here: https://gitla…

I'm pretty sure this has always been the case and is how the desktop standardization stuff works now in X11.

Yes exactly, tiling window managers frequently ignore applications trying to set window geometry. It need be no different for exotic VR wayland compositors or whatever else anybody has in mind. The existence of a protocol for setting window geometry and positions obviously does not mean every compositor must respect those requests.
Post reply on HN