GNOME's Mutter Lands DRM Sync Obj v1 Support For Explicit Sync On Wayland

[avis]

They suffer for it too. Don't like what Apple and Microsoft built for you? Tough luck, you have no choice but to use it, bugs and all.

It is impossible for you to spin choice as a bad thing. Without that choice nobody would ever be able to research and explore new ideas.

People do not need multiple display servers, period. This is the most asinine idea the world of software has ever seen.

We don't even need multiple audio servers and currently most Linux distors default to PipeWire.

We don't need multiple kernels either, thus we have the only one: Linux.

Some stuff needs no choice. It's there to provide APIs, nothing less, nothing more. As a user I should not care or bother about the display server on my system. Period.

I get it "Wayland is just a protocol", but there must be a reference implementation DEs and WMs could be built upon. Period.

Maybe in 10 years someone will tackle the issue I created many years ago.

[dragon321]

Maybe in 10 years someone will tackle the issue I created many years ago.

Nobody will tackle it because it doesn't make any sense. After dealing with bloat of X.Org Server the last thing developers want is yet another bloated thing that tries to do everything and work for everybody. If you don't want to develop your own compositor from scratch, use existing compositor or wlroots.

[oleid]

People do not need multiple display servers, period. This is the most asinine idea the world of software has ever seen.

And yet, there areindependent X11 implementations - I'm not talking about the period where we had Xorg and Xfree86 at the same time.
I'm talking about Xgl, TinyX, Rebex, WeirdX, X-Deep, X-Win32 and whatnot.

We don't even need multiple audio servers and currently most Linux distors default to PipeWire.

By that logic PipeWire would never have been developed. Pulseaudio neither - as well as Jackd. We'd all be using aRts.

We don't need multiple kernels either, thus we have the only one: Linux.

By that logic there would be no Linux, as there were open source kernels before Linux.

I get it "Wayland is just a protocol", but there must be a reference implementation DEs and WMs could be built upon. Period.

There is one reference implementation - weston. It even has a plug-in interface to allow extensions. It is just that desktops like GNOME found it easier to implement Wayland in their compositor than to use weston. But granted, if a library like wlroots would have existed in the beginning of wayland, maybe everybody would use this library and be happy.

[avis]

Nobody will tackle it because it doesn't make any sense. After dealing with bloat of X.Org Server the last thing developers want is yet another bloated thing that tries to do everything and work for everybody. If you don't want to develop your own compositor from scratch, use existing compositor or wlroots.

The single Xorg server was "the bloat" now 15 or so its replacements are not the bloat.

Have you ever written a single life of code in your life? What you're saying is pure baloney.

[avis]

And yet, there areindependent X11 implementations - I'm not talking about the period where we had Xorg and Xfree86 at the same time.
I'm talking about Xgl, TinyX, Rebex, WeirdX, X-Deep, X-Win32 and whatnot.

Whataboutism. None of them were installed or used on Linux distributions, they were needed by special people for their special needs.

By that logic PipeWire would never have been developed. Pulseaudio neither - as well as Jackd. We'd all be using aRts.

PipeWire was written as a replacement while retaining 100% API compatibility. Wayland is not a replacement and it totally breaks compatibility.

By that logic there would be no Linux, as there were open source kernels before Linux.

What other kernels do Linux distros offer? The hell are you talking about? The fuck it matters what other OSes with open kernels exist if this topic is about Linux/GNU for Christ's sake? A great whataboutism again. You've excelled at that.

There is one reference implementation - weston. It even has a plug-in interface to allow extensions. It is just that desktops like GNOME found it easier to implement Wayland in their compositor than to use weston. But granted, if a library like wlroots would have existed in the beginning of wayland, maybe everybody would use this library and be happy.

Weston is pure shit. It's not even meant to be used and AFAIK barely anyone or anything uses it.

Aslo, it was not written to be incorporated by Gnome/KDE/etc.

In short: zero arguments.

[Hibbelharry]

Another fun part in birdies arguments:

There are quite some X11 windowmanagers and not all of them offer the same basic features. See for example desktop composing, VRR or even decent multi display support. If thats a problem, than X11 was broken all the time (hint: it is in many many ways...) but I guess thats no problem at all.

[oleid]

Whataboutism. None of them were installed or used on Linux distributions, they were needed by special people for their special needs.

Sure, you could install kdrive on Debian back then. As well as Xgl. And tinyx is used by, well, tiny distributions.

PipeWire was written as a replacement while retaining 100% API compatibility. Wayland is not a replacement and it totally breaks compatibility.

Your answer shows me, that you didn't understand the meaning of my answer.
If people had it your way of allowing only one blessed version of something like a sound server, we wouldn't have neither Pulseaudio nor pipewire today.

What other kernels do Linux distros offer?

Let's see, Debian offers different kernel variants. Some of them are not available anymore, some never got an official release. But they exist. We have variants with FreeBSD, NetBSD, Hurd, Minix

The hell are you talking about? The fuck it matters what other OSes with open kernels exist if this topic is about Linux/GNU for Christ's sake? A great whataboutism again. You've excelled at that.

Two things:

1. If the topic is Linux, why do you keep bringing up Windows and MacOS?
2. Linux wouldn't exist if we had it your way of allowing only one implementation of an open source operating system. If I may remind you, you said:

We don't need multiple kernels either, thus we have the only one: Linux.

[Ghjnut]

I saw avis/birdie was banned a day or two ago. Guess now I'm back to avoiding the comment section.

[Vermilion]

No other popular widespread OS that I know of, has this choice. The vast majority of people want to get shit done.

How about supporting XFCE? Mate? Cinnamon? LXQt? Deepin?

Yeah, surely no other widespread OS has this many DEs either. How about we torch everything and get rid of this bad fragmentation. Everybody should agree on either KDE or GNOME, and then we'll have one true Wayland implementation to rule them all.

[avis]

Yeah, surely no other widespread OS has this many DEs either. How about we torch everything and get rid of this bad fragmentation. Everybody should agree on either KDE or GNOME, and then we'll have one true Wayland implementation to rule them all.

It's whataboutism.

No other major OS or Linux of the recent past has had multiple display servers. We are not talking about WMs, DEs, whatever you like to cite as an example. Period.

How the hell don't we have enough resources to maintain the single Xorg server, and suddenly we have enough resources to maintain basically 15 similar applications? How? Gnome's Mutter has debated for years about the feature we're now discussing, do you really believe all other Wayland implementations will add it soon? Really?