Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wayland-Protocols 1.10 Adds XDG-Output

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by GhostOfFunkS View Post
    Rejected because it is not needed.
    And here we have it, *exactly* the kind of "living in the bubble" mentality I mentioned. If it does not fit the one true way™ which Gnome is trying to shove down people's throats, it's "not needed". Well, tell that to all the people complaining about mpv having no borders. Or just rename Wayland to GnomeWindowingSystem and tell everyone else to take a hike and not bother.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by GhostOfFunkS View Post

      Rejected because it is not needed. Wayland was designed with CSD in mind. Scope creep is something you fight with napalm.
      Design is always readjusted to fit users' needs, this is why software development continues after bug-fixing. Wayland as a protocol is still heavily under development. Wayland was designed with CSD in mind, not against SSD. Wayland was also designed for GBM, but now Gnome is merging EGL-streams support upstream iirc (?), the absurd short-term solution to Nvidia's monopoly abuses.

      Either way, people are going to implement this whether it's accepted as a standard or not. Gnome's VETO will only result in duplication of effort and unnecessary incompatibilities.

      How do you feel about cursor theme CSD? Do you also like how one has to install and select multiple themes for Gtk/Qt/Compositor(in case it defaults to X11 one)/etc for desktop/window applications? Does this look like the way forward to you?

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by GhostOfFunkS View Post
        That would be a better name. At least it would tell who develop the protocol and the worthy compositor implementations.
        That's some very, umm, interesting logic you got there: Gnome's is the only "worthy" implementation. Because they do all the work on the protocol, apparently. But when others do some work, that stuff is "not needed", so won't become part of the protocol. Thus assuring that only Gnome's work remains and therefore only their implementation will ever be "worthy".

        Yep, that makes sense...

        Comment


        • #24
          So why then is Gnome's the only worthy implementation, if not due to their protocol work?

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by justmy2cents View Post

            that really isn't necessary to be in Wayland. i mean, it could be, but it is not even remotely needed

            DEs might as well just agree on common underlying screen recording compositor library and define how layout is passed, aka. layout format and how to pass surfaces with zero copy. at that point all that compositors would only need the visual part where you define which windows are recorded in which layout.
            By that point, then Wayland isn't necessary too.

            These things need to be standardized and become quite clear to the rest, I think that's the point of Wayland: To clear the mess in X.

            .Don't expect DEs/compositors agree on a "common underlying screen recording compositor library", that sound like a total disaster to happen. Currently DEs/WMs agree rarely and have NIH syndrome everywhere, instead sharing infrastructures in a more agnostic way (data indexing is only one of the few examples).

            That would work in an ideal world, but not in the current ecosystem. Wayland needs to be strict, robust, feature complete and widely adopted.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by timofonic View Post

              By that point, then Wayland isn't necessary too.

              These things need to be standardized and become quite clear to the rest, I think that's the point of Wayland: To clear the mess in X.

              .Don't expect DEs/compositors agree on a "common underlying screen recording compositor library", that sound like a total disaster to happen. Currently DEs/WMs agree rarely and have NIH syndrome everywhere, instead sharing infrastructures in a more agnostic way (data indexing is only one of the few examples).

              That would work in an ideal world, but not in the current ecosystem. Wayland needs to be strict, robust, feature complete and widely adopted.
              fun fact. compositors are not part of wayland, now,... guess what screen recording is. i mean screen recording that does more than just record full output, aka. full featured OBS like screen recording. it is compositor

              now you need to add access to sound as well and some other things.

              it just doesn't fit in wayland.

              and i think you miss the point about that library how i intended to sound it. it is not about recording solution. just common interfaces exposed by DE compositors for surface enumeration and passing those with 0 copy that software like OBS could effectively use

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by justmy2cents View Post
                DEs might as well just agree on common underlying screen recording compositor library and define how layout is passed, aka. layout format and how to pass surfaces with zero copy. at that point all that compositors would only need the visual part where you define which windows are recorded in which layout.
                That's the whole point. "Might agree" isn't really a practical approach, because as you can see no one agreed on it so far. It should be part of the standard protocols. And it better be, especially if security is concerned.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by shmerl View Post

                  That's the whole point. "Might agree" isn't really a practical approach, because as you can see no one agreed on it so far. It should be part of the standard protocols. And it better be, especially if security is concerned.
                  how nice it is to see same response just when you answer to one person. you can as well just read my comment above yours

                  but, i'll bite that one. what prevents DEs to work it on their own and pass proposal to Wayland-Protocols? there is already one precedent with exact same outcome in wayland history and that was also one of the reasons why they split protocols from wayland. if you check that history, you will also see the other side of the coin when solution is introduced by someone not familiar with the problem as it was before that split
                  justmy2cents
                  Senior Member
                  Last edited by justmy2cents; 02 August 2017, 04:15 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    The discussion is pointless, Wayland will become only standard as all drivers, toolkits and major desktops do want to support this implementation.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by R41N3R View Post
                      The discussion is pointless, Wayland will become only standard as all drivers, toolkits and major desktops do want to support this implementation.
                      Late to the party but you are probably right. Honestly, I think KDE users are to blame for all this flaming..., here you have GNOME users who do flaming comments such as "Made by GNOME.", and you can clearly see that started all this nonsense, but is that comment reason why it happens? In my opinion, no, it is reaction to much larger minority of KDE users who make flaming comments on almost every GNOME related article in very passive-aggressive way, usually targeting GNOME users not GNOME Desktop, assuming superiority and using very disrespectful language towards GNOME users. I can notice that pattern on other forums also.

                      If anything, this is interesting from sociological/psychological perspective, and it is quite clear that much larger KDE users vocal minority have that "better than you" attitude projecting on other users compared to GNOME users. So it's easy for anyone to get dragged in, and it happened to me once ona nother forum..., it's not because "one feels insulted" (since insult is taken, not given), but it's because "can you just stop insulting people for their choices?", and IMO those vocal minority people do a great diservice to KDE, by letting others read what they wrote and recognize the pattern, and built animosity towards whole DE based on that vocal minority as "I don't want to be aprt of this".

                      I take myself as an example, before I've started reading comments in articles and participating in them, I couldn't care less for DE, I was GNOME oriented for several reasons, but every so often I've used to "let's see new Plasma (when it came out for example)", and I was like "Wow, they did good job, really modern looking DE" and so on..., with some minor but annoying things prevented me of moving towards it (mostly design things, few bugs here and there due to the Ubuntu ecosystem at that time...). Now, I have to be honest, those type of people managed to build animosity towards KDE in me, the animosity I do not feel for any other DE, even tho it might be something I would never use and I completly disagree with design and implementation philosophy, I'm still neutral on it.

                      So this comment is more aimed towards those type of people on "both sides", but mainly towards that vocal KDE minority..., what you are doing is "How to loose potential users 101" with that passive-aggressive approach.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X