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

451–460 of 502 posts

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

#451

Post by palata »

NetMageSCW wrote: post #430
palata wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The very reason I like Linux is for this diversity. I genuinely don't really get your point of view, which I actually see a lot, and which to me sounds like you want Windows or macOS, but somehow don't realise it. Let's imagine this: some company makes an operating system based on Linux, in an efficient manner, by systematically choosing one way to solve a problem (one window manager, one init system, one file system…

Some people just want to get work done and fine tuning or customizing their OS is not that.

Sure, I have nothing against that. They should just not tell me that I cannot be different.

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

#452

Post by palata »

NetMageSCW wrote: post #432
palata wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like it's a philosophical question. I like freedom and diversity. I don't want Linux to be like Windows or macOS with one window manager, one init system, etc. I like that people (and I) can experiment. Is it less efficient than paying for Windows and macOS? Probably. Is it less polished? Certainly. But that's exactly what I want. If I wanted Windows or macOS, I would use Windows or macOS.

But that attitude means that “the year of the Linux desktop” will never actually arrive because the vast majority don’t want less polished, hard to choose, undocumented testing.

Sure. I don't want the year of the Linux desktop. Why would I care, really? I want Linux to be the Linux I like.

I sometimes feel that people try to explain to Linux people how they should modify their distro in order to make it look more like Windows, such that they would get more newcomers who like Windows. I don't want that! People who like Windows should use Windows, and we should make Linux look like a system I left for Linux!

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

#453

Post by palata »

jrm4 wrote: post #386
palata wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, I am not the one bringing that point up. The author says "I am forced to use it", they bring it up. I may be on the "Wayland" side here, but I have the exact same reasoning when I am on the other side: I hate systemd, but I genuinely cannot say that "I am forced to use it". I have the freedom to choose a distro that supports alternatives, and that is what I do. For Wayland it seems even easier: it's just…

No, double down -- You personally are not forced to use it, but today this is a terrible argument that, perhaps subconsciously, reinforces the falsehood that "you don't have to use it" is an okay and reasonable response, when it's really merely a selfish one. Again, Linux is everywhere and the better thing to do is to consider how the bad rollout of Wayland affects everyone -- especially, e.g. that rising 2 or 3 perc…

> It is FAR more important to raise that marketshare

I don't see why. Most users of OSes couldn't care less about their OS. The vast majority of humans are happy with Windows, macOS, iOS or Android. To the point where those who aren't are a rounding error.

I don't want to make Linux look like Windows, such that those people can finally use Linux and I can proudly look at a marketshare. If a Linux distro ever gets a "decent" marketshare, if won't be Linux: it will be a specific distro that managed to look like Windows or macOS. I most certainly won't be using that distro.

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

#454

Post by jcelerier »

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.…

OpenBSD is g̶e̶t̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶l̶o̶n̶g̶ ̶f̶i̶n̶e̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶p̶a̶n̶i̶e̶s̶ ̶l̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶N̶v̶i̶d̶i̶a̶ unuseable for any professional video-related work

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

#455

Post by globalnode »

bikelang wrote: post #387
globalnode wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

as much as i dislike m$, at least windows works and it works for games and graphics. when i need text or computation without a ui, i use linux. similar to the argument in the article about use what works, i use what works.

Idk - I’ve been trying out Linux gaming on Bazzite and everything seems to just work? It’s been a basically flawless experience. I dual boot Linux + Windows (technically triple boot - I have a third drive with a different distro for dev work) and I haven’t needed to boot to windows a single time in the ~5 months I’ve been testing out Linux gaming. Not a single game has required any tweaking with proton settings eithe…

ok im going to try linux again lol, hopefully this time it sticks. just need to find an image program that resembles paint as closely as possible.

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

#456

Post by scheeseman486 »

righthand wrote: post #371
scheeseman486 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"OK I was wrong, so I'm going to make another assumption because maybe this time whatever garbage I write might be right"

I wasnt wrong. It took them 17 years to come to an agreement. Just because they “just decided” this year or last year or whatever doesn’t make me wrong. And my point about them not caring about timely decisions was in my original comment so I didn’t write some garbage hopping from one idea to another. Seek help over your anger issues.

The cadence of decisions being made and problems being solved on Wayland has massively increased over the last 5 years and being ignorant to that and implying that the project is still spinning it's wheels is delusional.

Calling your posts garbage isn't an expression of anger. You should try being a little less sensitive when people mock you for saying dumb shit.

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

#457

Post by scheeseman486 »

pjmlp wrote: post #342
scheeseman486 wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better than trying to make a point and failing to make it. And if I didn't, at least I tried to be funny as that counts for something, your comment is just noise.

My comment is a fact, without the Windows games ecosystem, by developers living and breathing on Windows, with Windows development tools, Proton has nothing to play, even if many of Windows games are developed on top of cross-platform engines. Unfortunely Valve failed to make native Linux gaming a reality, not even game studios targeting Android NDK bother, which has the same 3D and audio APIs as GNU/Linux.

> Unfortunely Valve failed to make native Linux gaming a reality

Who cares? What would that actually achieve and how would they have practically achieved it anyway? Use their store platform to force or coerce developers? Hold a gun to developers heads?

Valve don't owe anyone shit, neither did PC compatible BIOS manufacturers, nor anyone else who creates a clean room implementation of a pre-existing API. Getting Windows software working outside of Windows is a net good for consumers and developers.

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

#458

Post by Suppafly »

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…

I think the argument is that Linux as a whole doesn't progress much because new projects constantly replace old projects without actually improving the underlying issues. X11 is old and has a bunch of issues, but those issues have largely been addresses, whereas Wayland is new and neat, but has a lot of issues that won't be addressed for years to come.

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

#459

Post by esseph »

genthree wrote: post #427
esseph wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regular steam does not do that. At this point on most hardware (minus SOME Nvidia, I think older stuff like 2XXX) you should have less latency in Wayland than x11.

I was under the impression that some of the anti-screen-tearing and other features in Wayland unavoidably set a higher (and, higher-enough to be noticeable in some contexts) floor on latency, though, because of how those features necessarily work. I don't mean drivers.

Variable Refresh Rate in Gnome. No screen tearing, no input latency hit for full screen games. To make this work correctly, I think regardless of OS, you need to cap the refresh rate to something just inside the max for the monitor. A lot of games these days have fps limiters. Let's say your monitor was 144hz. You'd want to cap fps to something like 140hz. That's going to prevent any screen jank or input latency.

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

#460

Post by uecker »

nickelpro wrote: post #403
uecker wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly do you think are the problems in X11 core protocol and extension mechanism that required to start from scratch?

Don't take it from me, Daniel Stone has a whole talk on the motivation for Wayland: https://youtu.be/RIctzAQOe44 Broadly, the X Server has a bunch of capabilities which are irrelevant. The modern model is really Window Compositor based, and the X Server protocol is just a pointless middle man in that exchange.

Sorry, I know this nonsense from Daniel Stone I am interested why you believe it.

"compatibilities which are irrelevant" do exist, such as old drawing primitives but those are not really an issue. They can be maintained for backwards compatibility and eventually deprecated and removed, but they are not anything which holds back modern clients. The X server protocol is not anymore a "pointless middle man in that exchange" than the Wayland protocol is a "pointless middle man". A protocol is obviously needed so can not be pointless.

Post reply on HN