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

81–87 of 87 posts

Re: Dwl: Dwm for Wayland

#81

Post by hodgehog11 »

zveyaeyv3sfye wrote: post #41
hodgehog11 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good for you. Meanwhile, many other people have been encountering _serious_ issues for much of those 10 years. This is well documented. Downplaying the issues of other users is a great way to make people dislike the product.

Link to any open issue you are encountering so we can discuss it then.

I said "most" of those 10 years, since it has become much better now, especially on AMD. Nvidia is still a disaster on Wayland though, basic screen sharing apps like Zoom are broken for many users, even with PipeWire.

The response to this is usually "that program is bad, it has problems and that isn't the fault of Wayland, don't use it". But Wayland broke userspace. If these programs all work well on X, that is a Wayland problem.

Re: Dwl: Dwm for Wayland

#82

Post by hodgehog11 »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #67
rcxdude wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's quite the claim; maybe you operate in different circles than I do, but most power users I know still avoid Wayland like the plague. X doesn't have support most of the modern fancy features, yes. But on older hardware, which people with less money usually have, X works.

Re: Dwl: Dwm for Wayland

#83

Post by christophilus »

aquariusDue wrote: post #68
christophilus wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

My waybar just shows the time in the center, my network status, and my battery health. It’s very minimalist. I went without entirely for a while, but I missed having the time there at a glance.

Re: Dwl: Dwm for Wayland

#85

Post by spauldo »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #67
rcxdude wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

X still works great for me. I figure I'll give Wayland a try after another decade or so.

Re: Dwl: Dwm for Wayland

#86

Post by lern_too_spel »

hodgehog11 wrote: post #82
lern_too_spel wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's quite the claim; maybe you operate in different circles than I do, but most power users I know still avoid Wayland like the plague. X doesn't have support most of the modern fancy features, yes. But on older hardware, which people with less money usually have, X works.

People with less money don't have old computers. They have Chromebooks, which use Wayland.

Re: Dwl: Dwm for Wayland

#87

Post by woodrowbarlow »

arp242 wrote: post #64
woodrowbarlow wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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() }".

yeah, by "fork" i really just meant "separate repo". you're right.
Post reply on HN