KDE Now Has Virtual Desktop Support On Wayland

[Vistaus]

Wayland released as a Minimum Viable Product. Things like in-vehicle infotainment consoles and smart TVs don't need virtual desktops and that's why extensions are still being prototyped (what KDE is doing here) and then standardized for various features X11 has.

In-verhicle entertainment consoles are using QNX more and more though, so there's no need anymore for Wayland on them.

[Vistaus]

I can't believe that people actually used a PC without virtual desktops. It's second nature to me, like, I can't even use Windows without a VM (the VM is in its own Virtual Desktop) because it lacks this and makes me super uncomfortable.

What's even more strange is that virtual desktops were already used back in the 80's on X and even in the late 80's/early 90's on Amigas (newer AmigaOS versions to this date still have virtual desktops, btw), so people were already used to it back then, but it somehow got lost when Windows became the dominant player (as Windows didn't have virtual desktops until the release of 10).

[Vistaus]

irrelevant - try to understand the complete context

I didn't disagree with the rest of your post, I just corrected you a little bit I understand the rest of your post and mostly agree with you.

[mzs.112000]

A desktop should look stylish out the box. KDE to me still has the Windows Vista-esque look and the applications remind me of Win32 apps.

Yes, I know you can change it but I have better things to do. GNOME apps may lack features but they certainly from a UX point of view look fantastic compared to KDE apps.

I wish KDE still had the Vista-esque/Aero-esque look.... At least in the default config, that hasn't been the case for almost 5 years now.

[molecule-eye]

Virtual desktops worked just fine on wayland before this, e.g. you could access/view them using the desktop grid, and switch between them using hotkeys. This is really only relevant for the pager widget working on wayland, or is there something else I've missed. Doesn't mean much for me since I have no use for the pager widget.

[Weasel]

amazing how technically clueless you are on every topic you appear
Flatpak is shit but *every* process should run as sandboxes as possible - period

Amazing how technically clueless you are on every topic you appear.
Flatpak is shit because of the sandbox, and almost *every* process should run as free as possible, unless it's untrusted, to reduce pointless overhead and management. Period.

You'd have to be a special type of moron to sandbox your trusted productivity software.

[jpg44]

Wayland design advantages:

• more secure - designed to give less privileges to individual applications. IE your browser won't be able to read key presses going to your text editor and your messenger app can't access all the other visual surfaces of other apps.
• built around creating tear-free, pixel perfect rendering with zero-copying at the system memory level. In the case of Intel embedded graphics you can potentially even have zero copying at the system and GPU level. IE your program writes a frame that is to be shown to the user to memory and that exact memory region is what the GPU itself refers to when drawing to the screen. Very efficient and conceptually beautifully.

The problem with keypresses and one app being able to have too much access to others could be fixed with an X extension that would by default restrict apps from accessing anything to do with other apps. Only Window managers, some screen grab utilities and screen readers need special permissions. The tear free thing is also possible with X using extensions and DRI.

Also, X can be made to work network transparently, with pretty good performance for many kinds of programs, including video. Every X app should always fall back to sending an image to the server over socket if shared memory support is not available.

[ssokolow]

In-verhicle entertainment consoles are using QNX more and more though, so there's no need anymore for Wayland on them.

Who said anything about "need"? One could argue that we already had Windows, so there was no need for Linux on PCs.

[Delgarde]

X11 has had virtual desktops since the 1980s.

On the contrary – X11 has never had virtual desktops. They're a feature which most window managers provide (just as they do on Wayland), but they're not universal, and they're in no way part of any X11 specification or extension. The closest they come to standardisation are the freedesktop.org EWMH spec from the early 2000s, which aimed at promoting better interoperability between the hundreds of "do it my way" window managers...

[Guest]

The law of Phoronix – "flip through enough pages and every thread shall dissolve into an ugly frame war, regardless of the thread topic".