NetBSD On The State & Future Of X.Org/X11

[moonwalker]

If you turned X11 XACE your workflow would most likely fall into a heap failure. For those needing security x11 is also feature missing.

I have not seen a feature request for that feature moonwalker; be it Xwayland rootless or native wayland protocol issue. If nobody asks for Wayland protocol/Xwayland to have a feature it should not be surprising when it does not have that feature.

This is not like the absolute position thing that turned into a debate from hell. The zone solution proposed with 264 https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayla...e_requests/264 looks good at this stage. The zone solution would deal with the xrandr problem where application crashes that has changed the screen size and the X11 server is unable to determine if it should reset the screen or not. Feature missing due to a debate on how to implement it is one thing.

But a feature missing and I cannot find a debate at all is totally another problem. Wayland protocol/Xwayland developers are not mind readers.

Oh, that feature is very much on KDE devs' radar, I just gave it as an example of something that new tech lacking makes the workflow less efficient (I rely quite heavily on "unshade on hover" part of KDE's implementation in particular).

I'm also not arguing against security per se, just pointing out that to most people out there what matters is being able to get the job done, not what they cannot see. Shortsighted? Perhaps. But the reality on the ground is that unless you're a security engineer or work in a profession where compsec can be a matter of life or death (e.g., investigative journalism is the first thing that comes to mind), most people will choose being able to get the job done over largely invisible to them security benefits.

[moonwalker]

OK, this is a good one, although I never used such eyecandy (but not stating that's useless because I don't use it). However I was pretty convinced that this "decoration madness" (rotating cubes, etc.) died out counless years ago.

TBH I'm a bit sad that openbox won't work on wayland (I have my "standardized" .config/openbox dir carried around from machine to machine in the last ~15 years) but I think that's the fault of openbox devs and not the X11 > Wayland switch and I've moved on.

Oh, it's not eyecandy at all, it's an alternative to minimizing windows. In fact, I seem to remember that in some early X11 window managers that was pretty much the only way to get a window out of your way.

[DumbFsck]

Wayland by default has a much higher input latency than Xorg due to "perfect frames", i.e. enforced vsync. That's especially bad for people with 60Hz monitors, let alone those who connect their 4K TV sets via HDMI 1.4b where only a 30Hz refresh rate is available.

Another Wayland "advantage" busted hard.

Quick correction

Not "much higher", literally one frame higher.

And while yes, the other comment was incorrect, iirc since adding the tearing control protocol the best case scenario of both are equal (rendering under Drm with tearing enabled).

Also, if the user, like many people, has one fast monitor (>=144hz) and one or more slower monitors (<144hz), especially if wanting to use VRR, I think I read X11 can't do it well (I don't recall the specific challenges/issues, as that is not my burden to bear)

[moonwalker]

On that page click the:
1) filter by standard.
2) Select Unix V7 what is the current version of the standard
3) notice the list magically shrink to 1 and that does not include Apple.

Next the "macOS version 14.0 Sonoma" only supports the 2003 version of the Unix standard.

Of course don't look at the bottom of the list

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_Group

Yes the SCO Group as a company does not exist any more this is a warning how untrustworthy that list is.

HP-UX from HP has not been paying to use the Unix trademark any more so has not been certified since 2007. The current versions of HP-UX are not certified to use the Unix trademark so are only Unix like solutions.

Reality there are only 2 companies of Unix left. IBM and Apple. With only one company with current Unix support being IBM.

https://www.opengroup.org/csq/search/t=XY1.html

They did delete Solaris from the list. So there is no reason why SCO Group could not be deleted as well. Yes once they start deleting the no longer active ones you would end up seeing reality down right short list containing 2 IBM AIX and 2 apple..

Please note Unix V7 was only published 18 Dec 2012 that IBM AIX was certified for in 2020. Yes Macos has a certification for Unix 03 that was published in 15 Apr 2003 but issued to apple 09-Aug-2023 and this is for same OS on two different CPU types.

Opengroup is fairly much we need money we will rubber stamp almost anything now just to get money yet no one turning up to get rubber stamped. MacOS does not pass Unix V7 with no documented plans to.

If I write a C++ app today using C++03 instead of C++11 or C++14 is it still a C++ application? If I run RHEL7 instead of "current" RHEL9, am I still running RHEL? If the answer to those questions is "yes" - then macOS is still a UNIX, and currently is the most popular and desired UNIX in the whole world, no matter how annoyed that makes me.

[DumbFsck]

Oh, it's not eyecandy at all, it's an alternative to minimizing windows. In fact, I seem to remember that in some early X11 window managers that was pretty much the only way to get a window out of your way.

User29
Incorrectly assumed you meant the window had an animation like a soft body (cloth or paper et al.) rolling up.

Iirc "minimizing to the top bar" was not only the only way in early X11 and other Unix and Linux display servers and wms, but was also the only way on early windows, mac, cp/m gui, amiga and others.

I didn't know this can't be done with Wayland, thank you for sharing.

[moonwalker]

The Open Group is irrelevant and their UNIX certification even more so. Any OS vendor can pay and get that certification.
Microsoft could get Windows UNIX® certified by the end of the month if they so desired, the same way IBM got z/OS certified despite it having nothing in common with UNIX (besides emulating those few interfaces and header files needed for this "certification", that is).

While I agree with you on the whole "pay to get certified" part, I think you're missing the point of UNIX certification - it is indeed all about implementing the right APIs so that existing apps for UNIX can be just recompiled for the new system without any unique snowflake modifications just for that particular OS. Though you're also correct that whole idea has indeed become largely irrelevant in the world where most new software is either heavily abstracted away web or relies heavily on features not covered by POSIX/SUS.

But I think my argument of macOS being the most widely used UNIX variant still stands. Though again, it has nothing to do with X11 vs Wayland debate, and I regret starting this off-topic discussion thread.

[reba]

OK, this is a good one, although I never used such eyecandy (but not stating that's useless because I don't use it). However I was pretty convinced that this "decoration madness" (rotating cubes, etc.) died out counless years ago.

TBH I'm a bit sad that openbox won't work on wayland (I have my "standardized" .config/openbox dir carried around from machine to machine in the last ~15 years) but I think that's the fault of openbox devs and not the X11 > Wayland switch and I've moved on.

https://github.com/labwc/labwc

labwc is pretty close to Openbox, which I learned to enjoy on #!

[reba]

User29
Incorrectly assumed you meant the window had an animation like a soft body (cloth or paper et al.) rolling up.

Iirc "minimizing to the top bar" was not only the only way in early X11 and other Unix and Linux display servers and wms, but was also the only way on early windows, mac, cp/m gui, amiga and others.

I didn't know this can't be done with Wayland, thank you for sharing.

Why wouldn't "minimize to top bar" be possible for Wayland composers?

Actually it is probably pretty simple because it just would have to hide the window's contents and only draw the winsow header and decorations via SSD as those are the elements the compositor draws anyway.

[avis]

Quick correction

Not "much higher", literally one frame higher.

And while yes, the other comment was incorrect, iirc since adding the tearing control protocol the best case scenario of both are equal (rendering under Drm with tearing enabled).

Also, if the user, like many people, has one fast monitor (>=144hz) and one or more slower monitors (<144hz), especially if wanting to use VRR, I think I read X11 can't do it well (I don't recall the specific challenges/issues, as that is not my burden to bear)

One 60Hz frame literally means 16.7ms which is the difference between a shitty mouse and a good mouse.

[DumbFsck]

Why wouldn't "minimize to top bar" be possible for Wayland composers?

Actually it is probably pretty simple because it just would have to hide the window's contents and only draw the winsow header and decorations via SSD as those are the elements the compositor draws anyway.

TagHmoonwalker
He is the one interested in it and who said it couldn't be done, I believe.