You didn’t criticize it, you simply stated that it was bad, in a clear attempt at baiting a reaction out of people. This is fragile loser behavior and indicative of an unwell mind. Seek healing.
I also currently have more problems with Wayland than with Xorg and find a few design decisions highly questionable, but that’s no reason to completely talk it down in the way you do. You don’t have to like it, you can criticize it, but you should stay civil.
You are too sensible. He just said Wayland doesn’t rock, and its just a fact.
If Wayland “rocks” why it need much more work to implement a WM ? (please don’t talk me about wlroots, its not part of Wayland), and in the end it fragments Linux desktop !
Wayland will replace X but it is not a brillant project.
More work to implement a WM without using something like wlroots? That’s a fundamentally flawed argument, you seem to believe there is no X protocol, when in fact, X11 is just an implementation of the X protocol, just like wlroots is an implementation of the wayland protocol.
Have you ever tried implementing the X protocol without X11? Good luck. There’s no other implementations because creating one is awful. Wlroots solved the same problem as X11 did, actually implementing the protocol in a way that other projects can make their own WM’s/whatnot easily.
wlroots IS equivalent to X11, wayland is equivalent to the X protocol. Nobody has reimplemented the X protocol.
wlroots is an implementation, just like x11, so, yes, that is how it works on the x.org side of things.
While I agree with your conclusion, your explanation is not right.
X11 is the 11th version of the X protocol, it is not an implementation. The Xorg server is the only relevant implementation for the server side of things, and for X11 window managers and X11 compositors there’s only libx11 (which is very horrible) or libxcb (slightly less horrible). Both of those are about as high level as libwayland-server + libwayland-scanner - which is to say, nearly as low level as it gets.
wlroots in contrast provides comparatively high level libraries / components, which make the implementation of compositors less of a headache than having to mess around with barely documented xcb functions.
Ok, my sentence was unfair. What I meant is Wlroots is not standard as Xorg.
Wayland has 3 “Xorgs” with eventually their own extensions that can hurt portablity between DEs/WM. Whats the point of a protocol if it doesn’t ensure your app will work on all Wayland ?
This exact thing happened with x11, you clearly have not researched the history of this.
Your app will work across all of Wayland, the reason this happened is because wlroots came out after gnome and kde made their implementations… kde and wlroots have worked together to the point where kde’s compositor is almost identical to wlroots. The only apps I’m aware of that don’t work are display managers but that’s only because the protocol for that hasn’t been stabilized yet.
True, I only focused on the “Frankenstein” comment. The initial comment wasn’t this condescending. It was quite cynical, but I am not sure that warranted these many downvotes.
Anyway: there was an intesting article recently that explained the architecture, and it makes sense. But it also shows the downsides.
Remote full terminals, not just remote shells, are invaluable. Remotely displaying old HP Openview. Remotely displaying tn3270 to access the mainframe payrole system that only allowlisted the bastion host for security. Remote displaying legacy X apps, like my engineers migrating ancient flight control documents from Interleaf to QuickSilver, other Motif applications. There are industries still needing and using this stuff. Hell, there are still Apollo systems around running X11R4 and rlogin running around in server closets on token ring because of data that could never be migrated. Congrats on 42, you’re still young.
If only. Took a long time to trust KDE again after their disaster called KDE 4. Worried as hell now that they intend to remove functionality in KDE 6, as well as making new wayland only features. And if you dare remind them of KDE 4, they get their pants in a twist.
By mentioning KDE3 and GTK2, my goal was to remind you of the emotional trauma KDE4 and GNOME3 came with. I love GNOME 43 on Debian 12, and found KDE5 couple months ago embarrassingly bad at performance and subpar (W10 tier) at polish
Ok, lemmy isn’t showing me the full context of our thread anymore… So I’m with you on the trauma of those terrible creations. Where were you going with it?
Well I wasn’t gonna downvote before, but now I am. Can’t stand this kind of fragility.
It’s the Wayland folks who can’t handle criticism. You are evidence of that. :)
You didn’t criticize it, you simply stated that it was bad, in a clear attempt at baiting a reaction out of people. This is fragile loser behavior and indicative of an unwell mind. Seek healing.
Yeah sure. Ok there, bud.
No it’s the way you speak about it.
I also currently have more problems with Wayland than with Xorg and find a few design decisions highly questionable, but that’s no reason to completely talk it down in the way you do. You don’t have to like it, you can criticize it, but you should stay civil.
You are too sensible. He just said Wayland doesn’t rock, and its just a fact. If Wayland “rocks” why it need much more work to implement a WM ? (please don’t talk me about wlroots, its not part of Wayland), and in the end it fragments Linux desktop ! Wayland will replace X but it is not a brillant project.
More work to implement a WM without using something like wlroots? That’s a fundamentally flawed argument, you seem to believe there is no X protocol, when in fact, X11 is just an implementation of the X protocol, just like wlroots is an implementation of the wayland protocol.
Have you ever tried implementing the X protocol without X11? Good luck. There’s no other implementations because creating one is awful. Wlroots solved the same problem as X11 did, actually implementing the protocol in a way that other projects can make their own WM’s/whatnot easily.
wlroots IS equivalent to X11, wayland is equivalent to the X protocol. Nobody has reimplemented the X protocol.
wlroots is an implementation, just like x11, so, yes, that is how it works on the x.org side of things.
While I agree with your conclusion, your explanation is not right.
X11 is the 11th version of the X protocol, it is not an implementation. The Xorg server is the only relevant implementation for the server side of things, and for X11 window managers and X11 compositors there’s only libx11 (which is very horrible) or libxcb (slightly less horrible). Both of those are about as high level as libwayland-server + libwayland-scanner - which is to say, nearly as low level as it gets.
wlroots in contrast provides comparatively high level libraries / components, which make the implementation of compositors less of a headache than having to mess around with barely documented xcb functions.
Ok, my sentence was unfair. What I meant is Wlroots is not standard as Xorg. Wayland has 3 “Xorgs” with eventually their own extensions that can hurt portablity between DEs/WM. Whats the point of a protocol if it doesn’t ensure your app will work on all Wayland ?
This exact thing happened with x11, you clearly have not researched the history of this.
Your app will work across all of Wayland, the reason this happened is because wlroots came out after gnome and kde made their implementations… kde and wlroots have worked together to the point where kde’s compositor is almost identical to wlroots. The only apps I’m aware of that don’t work are display managers but that’s only because the protocol for that hasn’t been stabilized yet.
True, I only focused on the “Frankenstein” comment. The initial comment wasn’t this condescending. It was quite cynical, but I am not sure that warranted these many downvotes.
Anyway: there was an intesting article recently that explained the architecture, and it makes sense. But it also shows the downsides.
https://pointieststick.com/2023/09/17/so-lets-talk-about-this-wayland-thing/
It is something to be squashed, like bug, yes? Yes.
deleted by creator
Sigh, kids these days.
deleted by creator
Remote full terminals, not just remote shells, are invaluable. Remotely displaying old HP Openview. Remotely displaying tn3270 to access the mainframe payrole system that only allowlisted the bastion host for security. Remote displaying legacy X apps, like my engineers migrating ancient flight control documents from Interleaf to QuickSilver, other Motif applications. There are industries still needing and using this stuff. Hell, there are still Apollo systems around running X11R4 and rlogin running around in server closets on token ring because of data that could never be migrated. Congrats on 42, you’re still young.
… as this chump continues to rice KDE3/GTK2 themes in their basement on their modded T430, a G40x mouse and a $100 gaming chair.
If only. Took a long time to trust KDE again after their disaster called KDE 4. Worried as hell now that they intend to remove functionality in KDE 6, as well as making new wayland only features. And if you dare remind them of KDE 4, they get their pants in a twist.
By mentioning KDE3 and GTK2, my goal was to remind you of the emotional trauma KDE4 and GNOME3 came with. I love GNOME 43 on Debian 12, and found KDE5 couple months ago embarrassingly bad at performance and subpar (W10 tier) at polish
Ok, lemmy isn’t showing me the full context of our thread anymore… So I’m with you on the trauma of those terrible creations. Where were you going with it?
Are you using some weird Lemmy client? I use Jerboa mainly (made by Lemmy devs), and browser website as well. They work fine, try them.
I was just having a little fun with the shittiness of GNOME and KDE’s past.