Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Cyborg)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

CIRCLE WITH A DOT

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. I'm not here to bash Wayland.

I'm not here to bash Wayland.

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
6 Posts 6 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • yakkoj@fosstodon.orgY This user is from outside of this forum
    yakkoj@fosstodon.orgY This user is from outside of this forum
    yakkoj@fosstodon.org
    wrote last edited by
    #1

    I'm not here to bash Wayland. My expectation that all my old X clients Just Work if Wayland is suddenly the display system is very reasonable, though, and it's an expectation of users who don't know Wayland from X, from GDI

    brouhaha@mastodon.socialB 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • yakkoj@fosstodon.orgY yakkoj@fosstodon.org

      I'm not here to bash Wayland. My expectation that all my old X clients Just Work if Wayland is suddenly the display system is very reasonable, though, and it's an expectation of users who don't know Wayland from X, from GDI

      brouhaha@mastodon.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
      brouhaha@mastodon.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
      brouhaha@mastodon.social
      wrote last edited by
      #2

      @yakkoj
      I'm here to diss Wayland and chew bubblegum, and I'm all out of bubblegum.
      Designing an X11 replacement that fails to meet some of the common X11 use cases seems absurd to me.
      I'm not talking about interoperability with X11. I mean that Wayland should have natively supported the common use cases of X11,
      rather than throwing away the ones that seemed hard.

      leeloo@c.imL datenwolf@chaos.socialD marshray@infosec.exchangeM 3 Replies Last reply
      0
      • brouhaha@mastodon.socialB brouhaha@mastodon.social

        @yakkoj
        I'm here to diss Wayland and chew bubblegum, and I'm all out of bubblegum.
        Designing an X11 replacement that fails to meet some of the common X11 use cases seems absurd to me.
        I'm not talking about interoperability with X11. I mean that Wayland should have natively supported the common use cases of X11,
        rather than throwing away the ones that seemed hard.

        leeloo@c.imL This user is from outside of this forum
        leeloo@c.imL This user is from outside of this forum
        leeloo@c.im
        wrote last edited by
        #3

        @brouhaha @yakkoj
        I never got the feeling that they threw away the ones that seemed hard.

        They started out with the view that how X11 does things is wrong. So they will not do that. If a usecase can be solved two ways, and X11 does it one way and the other requires instant teleportation, they will not do it the X11 way.

        paul_ipv6@infosec.exchangeP 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • brouhaha@mastodon.socialB brouhaha@mastodon.social

          @yakkoj
          I'm here to diss Wayland and chew bubblegum, and I'm all out of bubblegum.
          Designing an X11 replacement that fails to meet some of the common X11 use cases seems absurd to me.
          I'm not talking about interoperability with X11. I mean that Wayland should have natively supported the common use cases of X11,
          rather than throwing away the ones that seemed hard.

          datenwolf@chaos.socialD This user is from outside of this forum
          datenwolf@chaos.socialD This user is from outside of this forum
          datenwolf@chaos.social
          wrote last edited by
          #4

          @yakkoj @brouhaha

          Wayland is, what you arrive at, if one looks only at the lowest common denominator toolkits, which also happened to pull a Bender with respect to how to do rasterization and configuration management: You'll only see MIT-SHM and video acceleration surfaces being passed around, have a look at the spec and mistake the map for the territory.

          On that note, I think I'm one of the earliest Wayland "haters".

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • brouhaha@mastodon.socialB brouhaha@mastodon.social

            @yakkoj
            I'm here to diss Wayland and chew bubblegum, and I'm all out of bubblegum.
            Designing an X11 replacement that fails to meet some of the common X11 use cases seems absurd to me.
            I'm not talking about interoperability with X11. I mean that Wayland should have natively supported the common use cases of X11,
            rather than throwing away the ones that seemed hard.

            marshray@infosec.exchangeM This user is from outside of this forum
            marshray@infosec.exchangeM This user is from outside of this forum
            marshray@infosec.exchange
            wrote last edited by
            #5

            @brouhaha @yakkoj Some of the things X11 allowed were bad, actually, especially if you used it remotely as intended.

            It’s rare to find an open source platform team that’s willing to say ‘no’ to features for security. That’s why I like mutter.

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • leeloo@c.imL leeloo@c.im

              @brouhaha @yakkoj
              I never got the feeling that they threw away the ones that seemed hard.

              They started out with the view that how X11 does things is wrong. So they will not do that. If a usecase can be solved two ways, and X11 does it one way and the other requires instant teleportation, they will not do it the X11 way.

              paul_ipv6@infosec.exchangeP This user is from outside of this forum
              paul_ipv6@infosec.exchangeP This user is from outside of this forum
              paul_ipv6@infosec.exchange
              wrote last edited by
              #6

              @leeloo @brouhaha @yakkoj

              there are a group of folks that did the same with ipv4 vs ipv6. if ipv4 did something a certain way, it must be wrong. it's made implementation and adoption so much harder and slower.

              expecting busy and overworked sysadmins and computer users to throw away all the hard won knowledge of how things work is not the way to get fast adoption of something new...

              1 Reply Last reply
              1
              0
              • R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
              Reply
              • Reply as topic
              Log in to reply
              • Oldest to Newest
              • Newest to Oldest
              • Most Votes


              • Login

              • Login or register to search.
              • First post
                Last post
              0
              • Categories
              • Recent
              • Tags
              • Popular
              • World
              • Users
              • Groups