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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/