Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Miracle-WM Announced As A Wayland Compositor Built On Mir

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

  • SViN
    replied
    Originally posted by royce View Post

    Show me a current window manager or desktop environment using Arcan so that we can compare. Otherwise it's just fluff in the air and theoreticals.
    There aren't that many because people focused on Wayland.
    However that doesn't mean these are theoreticals. You can already see that they exist and work.
    The video I posted is not some animation. Its a genuine desktop environment done using arcan. They have a VR desktop and a scrolling desktop too.

    Leave a comment:


  • royce
    replied
    Originally posted by SViN View Post

    I posted that because that was 10 years ago.

    if you want something more current we can talk about the fact that it surpassed X feature parity and security about 4 years ago

    This is the follow-up to the ‘Arcan versus Xorg: approaching feature parity’ article which is recommended reading if you have not done so already.  After that article, there was on…


    Reality is:
    1. When you only deal with 1 implementation
    2. When you don't have to deal with bureaucracy(yes wayland should have a BDFL)
    3. When you actually work instead of arguing with the needs of others and voting

    shit gets done
    Show me a current window manager or desktop environment using Arcan so that we can compare. Otherwise it's just fluff in the air and theoreticals.

    Leave a comment:


  • SViN
    replied
    Originally posted by royce View Post

    I'm not seeing anything there that current wayland compositors can't do. What wayland does have is real-world usage and adoption.
    I posted that because that was 10 years ago.

    if you want something more current we can talk about the fact that it surpassed X feature parity and security about 4 years ago

    This is the follow-up to the ‘Arcan versus Xorg: approaching feature parity’ article which is recommended reading if you have not done so already.  After that article, there was on…


    Reality is:
    1. When you only deal with 1 implementation
    2. When you don't have to deal with bureaucracy(yes wayland should have a BDFL)
    3. When you actually work instead of arguing with the needs of others and voting

    shit gets done

    Leave a comment:


  • royce
    replied
    I'm not seeing anything there that current wayland compositors can't do. What wayland does have is real-world usage and adoption.

    Leave a comment:


  • SViN
    replied
    Originally posted by royce View Post
    Source?
    This is a quick demo of some of the features present in 'AWB' (Arcan Workbench) which is mostly a development sandbox used to test and evaluate API changes, ...

    Leave a comment:


  • guglovich
    replied
    Wayland for young people from Canonical.

    Leave a comment:


  • gotar
    replied
    Originally posted by varikonniemi View Post
    how does this differ from similar projects on x? In no way.
    That noone claims "X11 is a fertile ground".

    Also, how many X implementations rotted away before everyone standardized on the current one?
    I'm using X11 for 25+ years only, therefore I recall just one that's gone: XFree86.

    I​t would be identical to all wayland implementations except wlroots faded away. So things look much brighter in wayland land.
    You seem to mistreat wayland implementations as X11, while in this context you should compare it to WMs.
    People don't roll their own wayland compositors because they need different display server (~X11), but because they want different window/desktop management.

    Actually wlroots can be treated as the only portable and reusable Wayland implementation, therefore wlroots~X11 (display server and boilerplate), while wlroots-based compositors~WMs/DMs.

    From that perspective there is currently only one "common" display server (wlroots) and a bunch of incompatible ones (including KDE and especially incompatible GNOME).

    You state that propagating incompatibilities (due to the lack of protocols, creating them late or marking them as optional) is "brighter"?

    I remember many dramas with different concurrent implementations, including core ones (eglibc) and that was never brighter.

    And I'm worried now, there will forever be GNOME-only applications.

    Leave a comment:


  • varikonniemi
    replied
    Originally posted by gotar View Post

    ...and simply fade away, as most of the compositors I've bookmarked received no further updates after initial announcement.

    The soil that makes everything rot is not called "fertile" in my dictionary.
    how does this differ from similar projects on x? In no way. It's just the nature of things. Not all projects succeed.

    Also, how many X implementations rotted away before everyone standardized on the current one? It would be identical to all wayland implementations except wlroots faded away. So things look much brighter in wayland land.

    Leave a comment:


  • gotar
    replied
    Originally posted by varikonniemi View Post
    Contrary to what xorg heads ran with as propaganda, seems like wayland has provided a fertile ground from where modern DE:s can grow.!
    ...and simply fade away, as most of the compositors I've bookmarked received no further updates after initial announcement.

    The soil that makes everything rot is not called "fertile" in my dictionary.

    Leave a comment:


  • reba
    replied
    Originally posted by ehansin View Post
    I'd love to see a somewhat "no-nonsense" shell that allows for some tasteful animations, allows both tiling and floating modes, simple and clean configurations syntax, etc. More than just a bare-bones tiling manager, but simpler than a full-blow desktop environment. A shell that can do more than the former, but tends to get more "out of your way" than the later.
    Shameless labwc recommendation github, homepage

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X