51–60 of 76 posts
I was speaking at a conference recently and was asked to chair the session at the last minute. It was hybrid, so all the speakers needed to share their slides on Zoom. I have been daily driving Linux for 14 years, and this has almost never been a problem (there was a moment with i3 but it seems better). But I hadn't bothered to test this since installing (and generally loving!) PopOS COSMIC. The problem, at root, is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Two things: First, yes, a lot of Wayland's missing features absolutely were intentional omissions in the name of security. This is even almost understandable; the only difference between a vital a11y tool and horrible malware is whether the software acts on behalf of the user or against them, there is no technical distinction. Second... Wayland is almost 17 years old. If it was 2010, I would readily accept that it…
> I think people get the wrong idea that Wayland is telling them they can't ever do this, but it's really just telling application developers they can't absolutely count on being able to do it like they can in X.org. That's still worse than what X.org provides. "You can maybe do it" is worse than "You can definitely do it". > Secondly, the "Wayland is x years old" thing just doesn't make sense, this has to stop. This…
That's not worse, that's different. The positive side is that applications can't silently snoop around keylogging the system, transparently capturing things or using XTEST to bypass authorization.
Worse would be if you couldn't do it. On the contrary Wayland gives users more control over their machine than previously at least in principle (and application developers lose some control, which is obviously where a lot of frustration comes from.)
> What's not fine is then insisting that this new thing that has spent 17 years to get to a point of not being able to provide an equivalent experience to X11 should be the default and/or should replace X11.
> No one should even think about deprecating X11 until functionality under Wayland is a strict superset of functionality under X11.
X11 is mainly deprecated because nobody is really willing to work on it. The one person who wanted to work on X.org kept breaking shit. None of the desktops want to, or even can afford to, maintain X.org and Wayland paths forever. If people are upset they can get a full refund, at least.
It's been almost two decades and we're still taking steps backwards on accessibility and features because of Wayland. From day 0 Wayland put their idea of a beautiful design above the needs of users. It's hard to see how we can claim to be inclusive when even our most basic decisions are hostile to large groups of users. I never thought I would say this, but after 30 years of open source and Linux I don't see much of…
Absurd ideas like "applications shouldn't be able to spy on or manipulate each other without explicit permission from the user".
I was speaking at a conference recently and was asked to chair the session at the last minute. It was hybrid, so all the speakers needed to share their slides on Zoom. I have been daily driving Linux for 14 years, and this has almost never been a problem (there was a moment with i3 but it seems better). But I hadn't bothered to test this since installing (and generally loving!) PopOS COSMIC. The problem, at root, is…
In many in-person conferences in my field they started to request a copy of the pdf file before the talk, that will be projected and shared using a dedicated computer.
On the flip side, there's some software that works (somewhat) with wayland but deliberately breaks compatibility. For instance, Scribus uses QT which supports wayland, but they hardcoded a check to explicitly detect wayland and exit if it's found. You get the generic QT "supported backends" message that lists wayland, but if you actually try to use it the logic resets your choice, gaslighting you into thinking you ty…
I was speaking at a conference recently and was asked to chair the session at the last minute. It was hybrid, so all the speakers needed to share their slides on Zoom. I have been daily driving Linux for 14 years, and this has almost never been a problem (there was a moment with i3 but it seems better). But I hadn't bothered to test this since installing (and generally loving!) PopOS COSMIC. The problem, at root, is…
I use Gnome, and Wayland sessions have been flawless for years. Screen sharing works, everything works.
Also, I've seen colleagues struggle to get screen sharing working on both Windows and Mac; most OSes now don't just allow any program to read from any window, so if someone forgets to allow a permission somewhere, no screen sharing.
https://support.zoom.com/hc/en/article?id=zm_kb&sysparm_arti...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The problem, at root, is Wayland. Screen sharing worked fine for me on Wayland 3+ years ago (and still works today), so Wayland isn't inherently the issue.
And, as explained, it doesn't matter. The problems, at root, are human psychology and incompatible but popular software, and that's sufficient to drive people away. And the issues are not new: we had exactly that with Windows Vista.
It's pretty much guaranteed if someone is having issues, they're using a DE that's not Gnome.
I am a part of the Talon community mentioned here, use Orca, have contributed to the Rust atspi bindings and feel like I know Linux accessibility quite well. It is true to in Wayland you can write protocol extensions or custom compositors to get around these limitations. However, what many fail to realize is that the primary challenge in Linux accessibility is not just a technical problem as it is getting people to a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Two things: First, yes, a lot of Wayland's missing features absolutely were intentional omissions in the name of security. This is even almost understandable; the only difference between a vital a11y tool and horrible malware is whether the software acts on behalf of the user or against them, there is no technical distinction. Second... Wayland is almost 17 years old. If it was 2010, I would readily accept that it…
but wayland actually can't do accessibility. If it needs custom protocols that are not part of wayland, then wayland itself isn't the one enabling it
If you say "Wayland can't do interactive window resizing" because Wayland core doesn't have xdg-shell, well, it's maybe right by some twisted logic, but it's utterly useless and confusing to users who think that it means they can't when using Wayland which isn't true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absurd ideas like "applications shouldn't be able to spy on or manipulate each other without explicit permission from the user".
Nobody said anything about that. Is there any reason that Xorg couldn't tack on a permission system, other than that it would be inelegant?