Prolific Red Hat Developer Starts Up "Wayland Itches" Project

[duby229]

Nvidia developers have contributed EGLStreams backends for both Mutter and KWin. In what way do they ignore Linux?

Obviously, it's because -NOBODY- uses EGLstreams, literally it has not even -one- single opensource user. nVidia is completely alone on it. They are the -SOLE- consumer. A pre-existing and far superior solution called GBM already existed, which -literally- everyone else already uses. But using it would have required nVidia to actually implement a proper memory manager, but of course that was too much to ask from nvidia.... They would never consider -really- implementing an actual proper memory management.....

[DanL]

Then stop wasting others' time here, defending Nvidia's foul behavior.

I wasn't defending Nvidia's less than ideal driver situation. I was debunking your bullshit statement(s) that Nvidia ignores Linux and doesn't support it in any way. How about if you stop wasting peoples' time with patently false statements?

[shmerl]

I wasn't defending Nvidia's less than ideal driver situation. I was debunking your bullshit statement(s) that Nvidia ignores Linux and doesn't support it in any way. How about if you stop wasting peoples' time with patently false statements?

Again, don't waste time please.

[ehansin]

Xeyes and TWM. Need I say more? Okay, XBill would be nice as well.

[the_scx]

Xeyes and TWM. Need I say more? Okay, XBill would be nice as well.

Jokes aside, xeyes may be a very useful tool. Because it doesn't work over Wayland apps, you can use it to check if the selected program is running in native Wayland mode or just through XWayland.
This information is important when you creating flatpak packages, because you have to explicitly mark Wayland access in the manifest.
http://docs.flatpak.org/en/latest/sa...rd-permissions
Relying on the toolkit/graphics library is simple not enough. For example, wxWidgets 3.0/3.1 apps may support native Wayland when using wxGTK3 (Gtk+3), but this is not always the case, because e.g. wxGLCanvas doesn't work with Wayland yet.
And when we are talking about binaries, this is even less obvious. The fact that the game uses SDL2, doesn't have to mean that it will work in native Wayland mode. The same applies to the Qt5 apps.

[DanL]

Again, don't waste time please.

The truth is never a waste of time. Stop wasting time with lies.

[ehansin]

By the way, I've been a little snarky here lately. I did find this on Xeyes, yes more than fiun and games:

https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/162769/what-is-the-purpose-of-xeyes

In the end, I am pulling for Wayland though, coming from a non-expert.

[Weasel]

Um, that is a workaround, not a real solution. Running a process as a different user has many drawbacks.

And isolating processes from the same user has even more drawbacks.

Or: why would an OS force me to do that?

It doesn't force you to do anything, you isolate what you don't trust. It's an option, you have it, you use it. Apps by default should expect to synergize with other apps.

Why doesn't an OS isolate user processes properly in the first place? Why are you insisting on a cubersome workaround, instead of just having process isolation work properly?

Maybe because I don't want my own user's processes isolated so why should the OS literally force me to?

My solution is an option, your crap is what forces it on everyone and that's why Wayland is pure garbage.

Mind you, process isolation features are built both into hardware (page tables denying access to memory of other processes) and software (one process cannot snoop on network of another). Why do CPU and OS manufacturers go into lenghts to isolate processes, if it is so unimportant as you claim?

It's not unimportant, but having processes aware of each other is equally important and essential. Maybe my workflow relies on synergy between some processes, you got a problem with that?

Meanwhile I isolate only what I want to, as it should be. Piece of shit forced isolation that forces my hand even on processes I trust is what I despise.

You talk as if it's either full-on isolation or none at all. No, that's not the case. Ideally only a few apps would get isolated while the rest which are trustworthy happily co-exist.

[Weasel]

When isolation is properly implemented, as described, a user has the power to run ANYTHING whithout being scared that an app can compromize the system. You can run a closed source app, a virus, an app by a shady company, an app from Microsoft, some add-ridden shareware, an app by Russian hackers, a trojan, whatever, the user and OS is always safe.

Like I said, if you want that isolation, run it as another user. That's how it has always been in Unix land.

Same reason if you want to run something really dangerous you make a conscious decision and at least try to run it in a VM on top of other isolations. You don't get this by default. Imagine how insane it would be to isolate even stuff like bash or the terminal. Why would my favorite text editor be any different and be isolated by default?

For example did you know tons of Wine apps broke when they couldn't read memory of another app (same user) and you had to add a kernel sysctl to make them work? Obviously those apps are not malware, they just want to synergize with another one of them, most likely why Windows has more user friendly stuff than what you find on Linux also.

I don't use a piece of shit mobile OS with full-screen apps that are "independent" of each other. If I wanted that I'd be using Qube OS or whatever it was called where every single app is in a different VM. Yuck.

[Weasel]

You are a complete retard. That's not how it's done.

If you have a risky application, you run it on another computer. After each run, reinstall the OS from an image to be safe.

Another solution is to have a separate computer for each application. That's how it has always been in the UNIX land.

I think you're confusing Unix with Windows here, where everything used to run under Admin. Retard.