Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Weston Might Move To 4 Month Releases While Wayland's Maturity May Stop Timed Cycles

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by Azrael5 View Post
    major question concerns with the inability of the several operating systems' developers to implement wayland because of their incompetence and their laziness
    Wayland isn't ready yet, and some DE devs might just not want to implement it yet. Take Cinnamon for example, it is the standard DE for Mint which is a very conservative distribution. People who run Mint don't want to be dealing with issues related to cutting edge software, they want it to just work. For them, Xorg is the obvious choice right now. Whereas Fedora is a testing ground for the latest software, and therefore it was no surprise it was the first fixed-release distro to have Wayland by default.

    If the DE dev team isn't corporate sponsered, I think it's a bit rough to call them incompetent and lazy. If they're donating their free time you can't expect them to support something which doesn't even have feature parity with Xorg yet. I have a Wacom tablet, and it didn't work on Wayland until Xorg 1.20 was released very recently because of an issue with XWayland. This is one bug amongst many, and I'd expect to run into stuff like that on Fedora (or Arch which is what I'm on), but if I plug my tablet into a machine running Mint, I'd expect it to work.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by davidbepo View Post

      well your second phrase is interesting, beacuse if wayland devs did really put much thought then desktops would have reached feature parity with Xorg, none has done that yet, gnome is the closest, but for example (and there are more) i cant run any app that doesn't support my current resolution, this matters for old games especially under wine, i think the problem is that wayland is designed for developers and not for end users, gparted not running because the root thing is another example
      Rome wasn't built in a day. Nobody (sane) will argue that Wayland currently has feature parity with Xorg. But the list of features it's lacking is dwindling constantly. So just because it isn't ready now, that means it's worthless? If it doesn't do something like play old games, just use Xorg for now.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by davidbepo View Post

        well your second phrase is interesting, beacuse if wayland devs did really put much thought then desktops would have reached feature parity with Xorg, none has done that yet, gnome is the closest, but for example (and there are more) i cant run any app that doesn't support my current resolution, this matters for old games especially under wine, i think the problem is that wayland is designed for developers and not for end users, gparted not running because the root thing is another example
        Are you sure your critic is really regarding Wayland? By reading your post it seems like most of the issues are Gnome issues. I use Plasma-Wayland since more than one year and for me it is really stable and I don't see the same issues there. Issues do exists, but not really more than with X11. Missing functions like remote desktop and screen recording are addressed now as well. What's not working well at the moment are games, XWayland introduced with xorg 1.20 several new bugs with fullscreen apps (e.g. crashes in F1 2017) and then the input doesn't work well (e.g. in Rise of the Tomb Raider, Tomb Raider or Ballistic Overkill), sometimes the mouse jumps or the cursors seems to be blocked, but I don't think this is the fault of Wayland itself.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by davidbepo View Post

          mir is not anywhere near dead
          The moment canonical announced that they would use wayland+gnome instead of unity+mir in their next _desktop_ release, I started considering tit a dead project because nobody except canonical and few niche embedded distros used mir AFAIK.

          I don't follow ubuntu releases, but I think that version has shipped already (18.04 ?).

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by Weasel View Post
            But that's the thing. What is the point of having a "standard" library on top of Wayland that "everyone should use" (to reduce fragmentation) to provide much needed features, instead of having all of it bundled into Wayland itself directly?
            Exactly because wayland is not a compositor, it's a protocol. That doesn't mean that compositor part of what needs to be done should be done for every damn compositor separately, nor does it mean that compositor bits should move into wayland.

            These things don't even meet at same content boundaries. It's like suggesting that VLC functionality should be merged into ffmpeg, because ffmpeg contains reference video player ffplay (much in the same way wayland has weston).
            Last edited by tpruzina; 06-03-2018, 02:45 PM.

            Comment


            • #26
              IMO Wayland Devs an possibly Weston devs need to do a release ONCE a Year, none of this twice a Year BS

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by Anvil View Post
                IMO Wayland Devs an possibly Weston devs need to do a release ONCE a Year, none of this twice a Year BS
                Wayland the protocol could slow an update once a year.

                Once or twice a year is BS for software. Wayland and Weston developers are the same people. Software on the other hand should be targeting aleast about 4 releases a year. Why 4 its simple bit of maths. The longest security fault disclosure time frame 90 days. 365/90 is almost exactly 4. The shortest is roughly 45 days or 8 releases a year. So a release once a month on software would be good. This is one of the common problems people run into when they write the own software totally getting the maintainer-ship workload wrong software is not something that you can have a person work once a year on if you want it secure.

                So a release every 4 months for Weston is still way too slow.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
                  Wayland the protocol could slow an update once a year.

                  Once or twice a year is BS for software. Wayland and Weston developers are the same people. Software on the other hand should be targeting aleast about 4 releases a year. Why 4 its simple bit of maths. The longest security fault disclosure time frame 90 days. 365/90 is almost exactly 4. The shortest is roughly 45 days or 8 releases a year. So a release once a month on software would be good. This is one of the common problems people run into when they write the own software totally getting the maintainer-ship workload wrong software is not something that you can have a person work once a year on if you want it secure.

                  So a release every 4 months for Weston is still way too slow.
                  im fully aware its just a Protocol but what im saying is, if they just did 1 release a Year they'd get more Done kinda like XServer releases. you need STABILITY rather than More Releases, so once a Year is good enough IMO.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by Anvil View Post
                    im fully aware its just a Protocol but what im saying is, if they just did 1 release a Year they'd get more Done kinda like XServer releases. you need STABILITY rather than More Releases, so once a Year is good enough IMO.
                    Nothing like being clueless.
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Wind...elease_history

                    Years of active improvement of X11 was the years of multi releases a year. Reality here is nasty. X11 protocol only stops updating once its declared that is going to be deprecated. So your idea of stability is choose the dead.

                    The idea that more release is bad is garbage. Lack of good conformance suite so newer runs older no problems is the big problem. Also if older works applications can include fallback if they cannot find newer. So number of releases a year have nothing to-do with compatibility problems/Stability. Compatibility problems/stability is lack of Quality Assurance to make sure compatibility exists and functions.

                    The reality is you could do a release every day and still have stability if you have good enough Quality Assurance.
                    Last edited by oiaohm; 06-03-2018, 09:09 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by shmerl View Post
                      Wayland defines protocols, it's not providing their implementation on the compositor side. You aren't viewing Wayland in the manner of what it is.
                      So if I want to code an app that takes a screenshot or integrates with other applications' windows, how do I do that with Wayland? For example let's say I want to port AutoHotkey to Linux. Very popular software and so on. Windows can do it, are you saying Wayland is worse than Windows and you find that a good thing?

                      You see, I'm looking for a general solution that will work with any compositor, past and future, and one single code path, not 1 for each incompatible compositor implementing these features or if it even decides to implement them in the first place (not forced to by the protocol).

                      Not everyone uses their computer like a fucking tablet like those Wayland developers seem to think in the name of their "pseudo security". If you don't trust an app then don't fucking run it as a privileged user (including access to your files) is that so hard? That has always been the security practice in any Unix not just Linux because it just works.

                      Spying on other applications is not a security exploit it's a ESSENTIAL FEATURE of many workflows and I personally don't give a shit of some Wayland developer who thinks he knows best what their users want to use their PC for, just because they use it like a tablet.

                      This ought to be part of the protocol so that you, as a developer (and a user), have a clear path to code against these essential features, and know they will continue to work 5, 10, 20 years from now as long as the protocol is respected. Not have it stop working because the compositors you coded against were abandoned and new ones implement them differently (or at all), yay for fragmentation?
                      Last edited by Weasel; 06-04-2018, 08:00 AM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X