Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wayland's Wild Decade From v1.0 Release To Usable GNOME/KDE Desktop Support

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

  • ubuntuweston
    replied
    Gusar I was curious as to what behaviour is implied as toxic there, that's all. I understand that I'm required to do more digging by myself, coming as an outsider, instead of asking someone on a forum to point fingers.

    Leave a comment:


  • Britoid
    replied
    Originally posted by Gusar View Post
    Nvidia has been able to use DMA-BUF since ages.
    Ah oh well.

    Nvidia just need to get their head out of their asses and support Linux properly.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gusar
    replied
    Originally posted by Britoid View Post
    Isn't it more that Nvidia can't use GBM because it uses DMA-BUF which is a GPL-only symbol?
    Nvidia has been able to use DMA-BUF since ages.

    Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
    Sorry but that’s reality.
    Only in your head.

    Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
    So why would they want to do that?
    I could post examples, but you'd just glosse over them. In fact, I did post a few of them already, but you completely ignored that, because it clashes with your narrow-minded view where "just use Mutter" is the answer to everything.

    ubuntuweston He's just a troll who thinks anything that isn't Mutter shouldn't exist.
    Last edited by Gusar; 30 December 2019, 12:44 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ubuntuweston
    replied
    Originally posted by 144Hz
    No need to engage with toxic people or scope creeping protocols.
    I'm missing info so I don't understand what you imply here. Would you like clarify what you mean by this sentence?

    Leave a comment:


  • Britoid
    replied
    Isn't it more that Nvidia can't use GBM because it uses DMA-BUF which is a GPL-only symbol?

    Leave a comment:


  • Gusar
    replied
    Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
    Mutter and Wayland/Weston are already our proper standards and well-defined protocols.
    You wishing that to be the case doesn't make it reality.

    Leave a comment:


  • bug77
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    created by NVIDIA on the fly and not used by anyone else but them. Technically right but in practice it's bullshit.
    Yeah, well, that's how OpenGL works in general: somebody comes up with an extension first, it get adopted into some official version and then people start implementing it.
    In this particular case, it seems GBM has acknowledged drawbacks (performance, iirc) and while EGL Streams improves on that, it doesn't fix everything. And the third solution, the one that people are supposed to be working on together, is still MIA.

    Long story short, this seems to have landed in the hands of drama queens. Looking at this vary page's source code, it has "<!--[if IE]> ... <!--<![endif]-->" in it. Virtually every piece of code that's supposed to be portable has some target specific pieces in it, but in this case it seems it has become way more important to stick it to Nvidia instead.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gusar
    replied
    Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
    Gusar Don’t like fragmentation? Then don’t do yet another compositor..
    With proper standards and well-defined protocols there can be as many compositors as people feel like creating, and it won't cause fragmentation because the protocols will ensure interoperability.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gusar
    replied
    Originally posted by CommunityMember View Post
    EGLStreams is a standard. So is GBM.
    EGLStreams was pushed by Nvdia and there's only one implementation - Nvidia's. That's not a standard. A standard is something that's worked on by several entities *before* the spec is finalized and there are multiple independent implementations to validate the spec. GBM isn't a standard either. If you want an example of what could be considered a standard, it's GLVND. Pushed by Nvidia, but with input from the the community, and there are two implementations - Nvidia's and Mesa's.

    Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
    Just pure Mutter.
    Ah, yeah, "one compositor to rule them all!"

    Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
    And it comes with no downsides.
    No downsides, except that you're forced to use Mutter, and if you don't like a design decision of the devs, tough luck. No downsides, expect that it's GTK, while one wants a Qt based environment. No downsides, except one wants a small and simple environment without dragging in lots of DE-specific baggage. Yep, no downsides whatsoever .

    Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
    Mutter is doing well so no one can claim they are left without options.
    Yep, you have all the options in the world. As long as you choose Mutter . Vendor lock-in at its finest.


    As others have said, the core protocol is so narrow in scope that you can't create a fully functional environment without additional private protocols that each compositor has to reimplement over and over again, and so nothing is compatible with anything. Yay, fragmentation! wayland-protocols helps a little here, but even that is far from complete and then you also have compositor devs refusing to implement things that are part of wayland-protocols (like xdg-decoration <- and spare me your "CSD uber alles" mantra, if CSD was the answer to everything, xdg-decoration wouldn't exist).

    Leave a comment:


  • kpedersen
    replied
    Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
    duby229 There’s no disagreement then. Wayland does one thing and do it well.
    Doesn't Wayland provide a reference compositor (Weston)? That is also pretty crap.

    The main bulk of the work (because Wayland has such a trivial useless scope) needs to be done by individual compositor developers (almost like the WM developers of X11). These are tiny teams and can simply not manage to provide a robust solution if they have to do it all from scratch. This is where a "Weston compositor SDK" comes in handy. Unfortunately these are all currently crap too.

    Its all crap, crap, crap XD

    The only benefit I can see is Wayland eliminates the overwhelming choice of Window Managers / Compositors because they become too hard to develop. Unfortunately I imagine many Linux users will not like this. However reducing fragmentation is good for the enterprise.
    Last edited by kpedersen; 30 December 2019, 08:52 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X