Originally posted by davidbepo
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Weston Might Move To 4 Month Releases While Wayland's Maturity May Stop Timed Cycles
Collapse
X
-
-
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
Comment
-
Originally posted by Anvil View PostIMO Wayland Devs an possibly Weston devs need to do a release ONCE a Year, none of this twice a Year BS
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
-
Originally posted by oiaohm View PostWayland 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
-
Originally posted by Anvil View Postim 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.
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; 03 June 2018, 09:09 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shmerl View PostWayland defines protocols, it's not providing their implementation on the compositor side. You aren't viewing Wayland in the manner of what it is.
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; 04 June 2018, 08:00 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by kaprikawn View PostWhen people critisize Wayland, they talk as if the Wayland devs didn't put much thought into everything and just made it up as they went along.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Weasel View PostSo 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?
Interesting enough Accessibility support does not depend on X11 or Wayland running under Linux. So this was not a wayland problem at all.
This is why you need to rethink things.
Originally posted by Weasel View PostSpying 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.
Originally posted by Weasel View PostThis 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?
Wayland is provide a lot cleaner path. If something is not in wayland protocol more often than not there is a different protocol like Accessibility you should be using.
Comment
-
You know, calling it "accessibility" doesn't somehow make it sound like only a minority of handicapped people are going to use it. As if names matter. This is about power users who want to customize and enhance their desktop experience, as that's what AutoHotkey is mostly used for. The point is that such features being unavailable only in Wayland truly speaks volumes about how crappy it actually is designed.
Wayland is full of dumb decisions made my incompetents. Look at client-sided decorations as another example. Literally no other system that's worth its salt has chosen that route. Not Windows, not Linux with Xorg/X11, not even macOS. But Wayland has to be different because clearly everyone else is wrong right?
And yet Wayland devs were so adamant on it that they banned discussions about it from their IRC channel. How fucking close minded can you be? It's actually more sensible to request features to Microsoft and expect them to be implemented with 1% chance, than to try to contribute or suggest to most of these "open source" projects from fd.o, redhat, wayland, gnome, etc. Cancer ecosystem. And let's not forget about systemd but this is not the thread for it.
Which is why "patches welcome" only applies to sane open source projects, others can fuck off. They won't even accept contributions that stray from their idiotic "vision", much less suggestions.
Comment
Comment