Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Regressed State Of KDE Plasma On Wayland, But Things Should Get Better

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    ssokolow
    Senior Member

  • ssokolow
    replied
    Originally posted by Azrael5 View Post

    you talk so because don't know the benefits of wayland if implemented in every single elements of the operating system utilities and so on. The fanboy doesn't accept the progression if not understands it.
    Actually, I'm very much aware of the benefits of Wayland and I've been looking forward to it for years. I could even write up a long list of specific X11 things which bother me which Wayland will fix.

    (And I was the one who actually chimed in on the mailing list to remind them about making the system idleness count for the screensaver aware joystick/gamepad input when a proposal was made for a Wayland joystick/gamepad protocol.)

    ... I'm just very particular about how my desktop should look and feel and not only has GNOME has been drifting ever further from that, they haven't proven that they're able to avoid causing regressions in GTK+ 3.x when it's used to build more traditional desktops.

    (Which is why my own coding efforts have switched from targeting PyGTK (GTK+ 2.x, the closest thing to a universal Linux toolkit at the time) to PyQt (Qt 5), regardless of the desktop they're expected ot run on.)

    TL;DR: I'm well aware of the benefits of Wayland. The downsides of GNOME dwarf the benefits of Wayland, so I'm waiting for a non-GNOME way to run Wayland on top of the nVidia binary drivers I use to get work done.

    Originally posted by Azrael5 View Post

    Wayland is much more efficient than x11. One only distro uses it because the other distros are not ready for wayland.
    I use a blend of LXDE, and KDE, and desktop-independent components, specifically to maximize efficiency and responsiveness within the limits of the features I need.

    (ie. I start with LXDE, strip out anything that can be replaced with a lighter but less featureful solution, such as replacing LXTerminal with urxvt and kuake.pl, and then bring in the KDE components I can't live without, such as Filelight (Baobab's radial view is a very poor clone of it), K3b, and, when working with heterogeneous monitors, Plasma (LXPanel doesn't support "divide a taskbar across multiple panels on the same edge" and not all my systems can get the bottom edge of all the monitors to line up so they can share a single, very long panel).)

    Trust me when I say that moving to GNOME would bloat my system up and slow it down more than moving to Wayland would slim it down and speed it up.
    ssokolow
    Senior Member
    Last edited by ssokolow; 16 July 2017, 10:37 AM.

    Leave a comment:

  • boxie
    Senior Member

  • boxie
    replied
    Originally posted by cipri View Post

    You are right! But the longer you wait, the more you continue stacking on sh*t, the more time you loose, and in the end it will come to the same solution, removing QT.
    I know this very well, since I wasted a lot of time with QT, and building on top of sh*t. I don't see any hope of QT to change. Also the new Vulkan stuff introduced by QT, exactly like the new "QT3D" has the same old-fashion, horrible, and hard to maintain API. [The reason is consistency. Consistency is good and important, but not when aiming for being consistent with sh*t].
    And what does rewriting bring? Easy: The earlier, the less painfull it will be. QT is introducing all the time new features.... mostly experimental and full of bugs. And you spend time with QT, you build on top of it, then you inevitably get across the horrible bugs, you make a bug report, it's flagged as "critical". At this point your hopes are big for a bug-fix, till comes the disillusion and many years later you still have to notice that it was not touched in any sense. You are stuck, and then you can choose.... to learn all the Qt internals, understand all the sh*t and try to fix it yourself, then you hope that your fix will be merged, you wait again... and with big chances that nobody cares. Then you can choose to have your separate QT, which gets out of sync with the original.. etc... etc... it's like a chain reaction of sh*t. And in the end you have to notice..... that with all that effort and lost time, you could have written the needed tools yourself and not depending on qt anymore.
    Even you get past a horrible qt bug,.... the next ones are around the corner... and you depend on a 90s style c++-API, which makes your own code more complicated, harder to maintain and watching out for leakages of the raw pointers... (especially for the newer additions with less documentation, where it's not clear to whom the raw pointers belong.... to you or to the qt framework which might do the destruction, etc......)

    A nice story, somehow related: https://medium.com/message/everythin...n-81e5f33a24e1

    cipri
    as was said, it would be better to start the project from scratch than to remove QT.

    Leave a comment:

  • cipri
    Phoronix Member

  • cipri
    replied
    Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
    What value does rewriting it without give you?
    You are right! But the longer you wait, the more you continue stacking on sh*t, the more time you loose, and in the end it will come to the same solution, removing QT.
    I know this very well, since I wasted a lot of time with QT, and building on top of sh*t. I don't see any hope of QT to change. Also the new Vulkan stuff introduced by QT, exactly like the new "QT3D" has the same old-fashion, horrible, and hard to maintain API. [The reason is consistency. Consistency is good and important, but not when aiming for being consistent with sh*t].
    And what does rewriting bring? Easy: The earlier, the less painfull it will be. QT is introducing all the time new features.... mostly experimental and full of bugs. And you spend time with QT, you build on top of it, then you inevitably get across the horrible bugs, you make a bug report, it's flagged as "critical". At this point your hopes are big for a bug-fix, till comes the disillusion and many years later you still have to notice that it was not touched in any sense. You are stuck, and then you can choose.... to learn all the Qt internals, understand all the sh*t and try to fix it yourself, then you hope that your fix will be merged, you wait again... and with big chances that nobody cares. Then you can choose to have your separate QT, which gets out of sync with the original.. etc... etc... it's like a chain reaction of sh*t. And in the end you have to notice..... that with all that effort and lost time, you could have written the needed tools yourself and not depending on qt anymore.
    Even you get past a horrible qt bug,.... the next ones are around the corner... and you depend on a 90s style c++-API, which makes your own code more complicated, harder to maintain and watching out for leakages of the raw pointers... (especially for the newer additions with less documentation, where it's not clear to whom the raw pointers belong.... to you or to the qt framework which might do the destruction, etc......)

    A nice story, somehow related: https://medium.com/message/everythin...n-81e5f33a24e1

    cipri

    Leave a comment:

  • Charlie68
    Senior Member

  • Charlie68
    replied
    ... what I meant was that I do not rush into wanting wayland that at user level changes little or nothing. I am not saying that wayland is bad, but simply that in this development phase it is normal for dev to encounter problems and regressions. It will take years before the wayland will definitively replace Xorg. GNU / Linux is not just Gnome, but Kde, Xfce Lxqt, etc. Without counting driver issues. But to the end user these things matter little, the important thing is that things work well that either Xorg or Wayland does not matter.

    Leave a comment:

  • R41N3R
    Senior Member

  • R41N3R
    replied
    From my point of view since Qt 5.9.1 the latest default Plasma Desktop with Wayland works quite well. You will find issues mostly when adjusting the desktop too much, but I'm sure this will improve quite fast. Often issues you see in KDE are related to graphic drivers, input and Qt bugs. The whole stack needs small improvements. But this Qt bug Martin talks about is/was really bad and I don't understand how Qt could release two versions in such a bad state where one of the biggest Qt projects basically has been regressed that much. They didn't even consider a bug fix release for Qt 5.8. Not nice at all. I hope Qt will take this bad example seriously.

    Leave a comment:

  • AdamOne
    Senior Member

  • AdamOne
    replied
    i'll use an older Qt-version, i just want wayland, please!!

    Leave a comment:

  • Luke_Wolf
    Senior Member

  • Luke_Wolf
    replied
    Originally posted by boxie View Post

    the problem is that the carpet was yanked out from underneath the Kde teams feet with changed between Qt5.7 and Qt5.9 - and the news is that wayland will take a bit longer to get out the door
    Exactly, it pushes things back. Not in a world ending way, but it's the kind of thing that tacks months onto development time.

    Originally posted by cipri
    I have stressed already so many times, that in my opinion one should remove the QT dependency.
    You do realize that what you're proposing is not just difficult but basically impossible to do right? It would be far easier to rewrite everything from scratch in Rust than it would be to remove Qt as a dependency. Qt isn't just a toolkit, it's a platform. To remove Qt is the same level of difficulty it would be to remove the Java BCL or .NET Framework from a very large codebase from the respective languages. Pretty much everything would have to be rewritten and tested... possibly even completely changing the idiom of the code. It is so difficult that the balance is seriously heavily in favour of just a from scratch rewrite without the dependency in the first place. If we're just keeping things C++ though what's the advantage? What value does rewriting it without give you? The answer isn't a whole lot of positive, maybe some bad architectural design choices here and there revisited and fixed, and you're probably going to have a much buggier situation for many years until everything is properly shaken out again.

    Leave a comment:

  • Vistaus
    Senior Member

  • Vistaus
    replied
    Originally posted by Charlie68 View Post
    I remember I was on ubuntu 10.04 when it was rumored that ubuntu 10.10 would have default wayland. We're in 2017 and apart from Fedora nobody uses wayland! Then Ubuntu talks about Mir and suddenly wayland becomes indispensable. Something will not come back and anyway, years will pass before the wayland will be used by many distributions, if this happens!
    Wrong. Fedora is the only *major* distribution using Wayland by default but by no means it's the only distribution to use Wayland by default.

    Leave a comment:

  • cipri
    Phoronix Member

  • cipri
    replied
    I have stressed already so many times, that in my opinion one should remove the QT dependency.

    Leave a comment:

  • boxie
    Senior Member

  • boxie
    replied
    Originally posted by Charlie68 View Post
    What I do not understand is what is the problem? Kde on Wayland is development and I think it will take time, so normal that there may be regression. What is the news?
    the problem is that the carpet was yanked out from underneath the Kde teams feet with changed between Qt5.7 and Qt5.9 - and the news is that wayland will take a bit longer to get out the door

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X