Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dwl: Dwm for Wayland

codeberg.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 87 posts

Re: Dwl: Dwm for Wayland

#61

Post by dodomodo »

dang wrote: post #58
dodomodo wrote: post #8

[flagged]

" Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I was wrong to word myself the way I did, but my comment is simple not shallow, what I'm trying to say is that the amount of work done is not worth the architectural advantages of Wayland. It's a simple argument that people in the replies didn't fail to understand, but did fail to have a good response too. My real violation of the guidelines is this in my opinion: "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes."

Re: Dwl: Dwm for Wayland

#62

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

blurbleblurble wrote: post #59
mystifyingpoi wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to be rude, but "it's worked great" and "still some things I struggle with" need some clarification.

The things I struggle with are very niche, like remote desktop via pipewire over ssh. Day to day stuff is way better than x11. Remember how much fiddling used to be necessary to configure x11 for your specific devices? I've never once done that and I don't miss it at all. By the way, pipewire is amazing.

> Remember how much fiddling used to be necessary to configure x11 for your specific devices?

Er. No, I don't remember that. Are you talking about needing to make a xorg.conf once upon a time? Because that hasn't been generally needed for... over a decade? Maybe two at this point?

Re: Dwl: Dwm for Wayland

#63

Post by dang »

dodomodo wrote: post #61
dang wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I was wrong to word myself the way I did, but my comment is simple not shallow, what I'm trying to say is that the amount of work done is not worth the architectural advantages of Wayland. It's a simple argument that people in the replies didn't fail to understand, but did fail to have a good response too. My real violation of the guidelines is this in my opinion: "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't…

Thanks for that! I appreciate the guideline swap, and also your original intention.

Btw, it's not uncommon that a commenter (you in this case) will respond to a mod (me in this case) with substantive information that they didn't include in their original comment, which explains what they really meant to say. We call this the 'rebound' phenomenon (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...).

It's a pity that the comment doesn't come out this way to begin with! But it's hard to remember that the state in one's head isn't transmitted automatically, and also hard to figure out which bits of it need to be put into a comment. Something about getting resistance (like a mod reply) stimulates this process. Maybe someday we'll figure out how to activate it more proactively.

Re: Dwl: Dwm for Wayland

#64

Post by arp242 »

woodrowbarlow wrote: post #7
cnity wrote: post #2

I wonder if it was considered to submit this as a dwm patch instead.

i think fork was the correct approach -- it was written in such a way that many of the popular dwm patches can be applied cleanly to dwl. (i used dwl for quite a while. strong recommend.)

It's not really a fork in any meaningful sense, because rewriting dwm (or any other X11 WM) to Wayland means re-doing almost all code. A "dmw with Wayland" would basically be "if (x11) { x11_code() } else { wayland_code() }".

Re: Dwl: Dwm for Wayland

#65

Post by gosub100 »

dodomodo wrote: post #26
temp0826 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wayland has been around for 15+ years now and I've been using it daily for probably 10. At this point I have to assume comments like this are unserious.

You have to understand that I don't really care about the internals of my DE. The same of true for 95% of Linux users and 99.999% of general computer users, so when I see a huge amount of effort goes into basically seemingly pointless refactoring, instead of tackling issues that are actually important to users, it is disappointing to me. I just installed KDE Manjaro and guess what? It stills uses X, and no one has an…

> seemingly pointless refactoring, instead of tackling issues that are actually important to users

its not a dichotomy. Xorg was built on X11R6, a platform that was written circa 1993. You cannot "tackle issues important to users" based on an outdated stack. They were painted into numerous corners that only a rewrite would fix.

Re: Dwl: Dwm for Wayland

#66

Post by epr »

Philpax wrote: post #43
epr wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess people downvoting this don't get the joke?

What's the joke?

dwm and the community around it tend to use patches for absolutely everything, unlike most other projects. For most projects/codebases, maintaining patch sets is done for security, customizations, etc., but rarely are users expected to configure their window manager by modifying the source code. dwm is well known for being very minimalist, with many features people would expect from other window managers not being included out of the box. To get something more fully featured, users are meant to cobble together their own version of dwm with multiple patches. I'm not saying this workflow doesn't work for dwm and other suckless software projects, it's just that it's pretty out of the ordinary.

So, having some experience with the project and how different x and wayland are, when I saw this commenter had brought up the idea of making the switch from x to wayland a patch, it made me laugh out loud. The idea of leaning even further into the borderline degenerate amount of patching already done with suckless software to the point where you're practically rewriting the majority of it was very funny, and so I was confused about the downvotes.

Re: Dwl: Dwm for Wayland

#67

Post by lern_too_spel »

rcxdude wrote: post #54
mort96 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I encounter _serious_ issues when I use X. Neither is perfect, but this insistence that Wayland is "not ready" because it doesn't have certain people's pet features ignores the silent majority for whom it just works and works better than X ever did. This is not me downplaying those issues some people encounter in Wayland. But I think you're sort of doing the opposite. (And, Wayland is not a "product".)

Because wayland is 'ready' when X can be properly killed, i.e. wayland is working for essentially all users. As it stands a huge fraction of users have issues with it, because most users have at least one 'pet feature' which they are not willing to give up.

X doesn't work for essentially all users. It works for substantially fewer users than Wayland does. There are several features that X is missing, and you might call them "pet features" but they are features that the vast majority of graphical desktop users expect these days.

Re: Dwl: Dwm for Wayland

#68

Post by aquariusDue »

christophilus wrote: post #48
xwiz wrote: post #4

Looks like a great project. I'm a big TWM fan, so I would also like to direct attention to my daily driver, Niri. https://github.com/YaLTeR/niri

Niri has been my daily driver for a while now. It’s excellent and keeps getting better.

Same here (on Fedora), coupled with Kando (which recently got Niri support) for mouse gestures, shortcuts and macros it's a total powerhouse.

Sadly I can't seem to find a config I like for waybar, if anyone has any tips or dotfiles please share them!

Post reply on HN