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

[woddy]

have you ever worked on cars? upgrading breaks or adding a break booster can be done on 50 year old cars if you wanted to. Much cheaper than buying a new car that needs special tools to bleed the breaks.

Then he didn't understand what I wrote, or I couldn't explain myself.
You are free to have the car you want, but it must comply with the law on road safety, if you struggle to find a mechanic who can get his hands on it you can't get angry with the mechanic on your doorstep.
The analogy with Xorg is clear...no one forbids you to use, but don't complain if no one is willing to work on it, don't complain if one day you have to compile it yourself because your distribution no longer does it.

[oiaohm]

"having macro support like for X11 wouldn't help the user achieve desired outcomes, as the way it would work is too incompatible with Wayland's structure"
to which you'd respond with:"

This is close but not quite right.

X11R5 and before you had to do macro by Proxy. X11R6 standard is release in 1994 it adds the Xtest interfaces that allow you to inject input anyone using Accelerated X11 or other closed source X11 servers on Linux were waiting into 2003 for these features..

There are two different Macro support solutions under X11.
Solution 1: The X11 macro solution that predates Linux and predates X11R6 is creating a proxy application between the X11 application and the X11 server.
Solution 2: The one Weasel is use to is the after 1994 one with items like autohotkey where you inject input commands into server or the like without using a proxy yes the Xtest extension of X11.

People like Weasel are unable to think how we macro applications before we had the Xtest extension under X11.

Solution 1 will work with Wayland.. Having the old background with X11 means I went looking for items like wldbg that is a proxy solution when the newer solution for macroing application failed..

https://www.autohotkey.com/docs/v1/lib/ImageSearch.htm

Yes in theory you could use image detection to locate window and them move it by that method of course this is CPU heavy and open to errors.

The biggest problem with the autohotkey like solutions is that it possible for windows to pop up from a different application and catch the input that was meant to go to particular application this is not a defect the proxy based solutions suffer from.

Basically there has been two ways to macro applications. The proxy one has out of favor even that this solution in a lot of ways is more stable and secure..

Lot of ways for macro appreciations it would be nice to have extension to say hey wayland compositor please give me two sockets one of the application to the compositor you have and one that I need to proxy to so the application window stays where it is. Of course have a disconnect command to hand back both sockets once not needing to macro the application any more. This would be powerful form of security_context_v1 in the Wayland protocol of course this could be a dbus protocol so applications cannot without authority control another application..

This is my problem the way we have been macro controlling applications is most likely not the most secure or the most optimal way to-do it.

This is my biggest problem Weasel is not correctly considering the other ways to solve the problem. Lot of the modern macro solutions have not been designed to be 100 percent secure or reliable so really do need a redesign.

[Weasel]

Everything is working.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/everything

pronoun

• every single thing or every particular of an aggregate or total; all.

Still waiting for you to show me how it can position windows on the screen wherever you want with a script.

That's part of everything you illiterate clown, considering every other display server/window manager can do it (not just on Linux, Windows too).

[Weasel]

Think about this is correct. Remember scripts you are talking about are design for absolute world. Wayland is relative world this is in fact a different beast.

Yeah, and that's the problem.

When I, as a human, look at my screen, I see the whole screen. Not just one window.

And I want to automate my work and what I see, in absolute coordinates, because I see and work with the whole screen.

These MRs are half-assed at best.

[Weasel]

So what they meant to say is like:

"having macro support like for X11 wouldn't help the user achieve desired outcomes, as the way it would work is too incompatible with Wayland's structure"
to which you'd respond with:

"so the implementation of either the macro support or then the macros themselves would have to be adapted to work, what I care about is the outcome and right now I can't have my desired outcome in any way. So Wayland is a no-go to me until this blocking issue is resolved"

I see, thanks for the clarification. But yeah, I like to automate my workflow. Even between apps I use a lot. It's not the hotkeys that are the issue, it's what the macro can do.

[avis]

Linux has long needed a Compositor, that was optimized around linux. There are just too many compromised with X11 for a modern laptop, phone. tablet or workstation. Its perfectly fine for a Server Management Interface. Wayland isn't perfect but at least its an optimized Compositor/Driver stack. X11s problems are obvious when you use MacOS, iPhoneOS, or Windows. If we want, a high performance, reliable, low latency graphics on linux X11 will never deliver it.

Almost nothing in this statement is even remotely true, and without the tearing protocol which is missing in the vast majority of Wayland compositors, is has a much higher latency than X11 based WMs. Michael has tested X11 vs Wayland on numerous occasions and in most cases they are withing a percent of each other. Sometimes X11 is faster, sometimes Wayland is slightly faster, in rare case e.g. Mutter is substantially slower than X11/Mutter.

Whatever overhead X11 has it's irrelevant for modern PCs with super fast CPUs and GPUs. X11 was deleveloped when PCs, I mean workstations, were like 1'000-10'000 times slower. It's not as bad as you want to portray it. Wayland has fewer levels of abstraction and may "feel" faster, that's it.

[mrg666]

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/everything

pronoun

• every single thing or every particular of an aggregate or total; all.

Still waiting for you to show me how it can position windows on the screen wherever you want with a script.

That's part of everything you illiterate clown, considering every other display server/window manager can do it (not just on Linux, Windows too).

Illiterate? Wow, you have not been funnier. You made my day.

The thing is I am not putting any window on the screen with a script. Not interested in helping you out with that. You find your own way. I want you to overcome your shortcomings and learn to do things by yourself. Take a stimulant, drink a cup of dark coffee after getting a good sleep. But I am not sure what you will do with the stink, POS.

[oiaohm]

When I, as a human, look at my screen, I see the whole screen. Not just one window.

And I want to automate my work and what I see, in absolute coordinates, because I see and work with the whole screen.

What single human should see and what automation should see happen to be different things.

I have worked with the pre 1994 proxy solutions. These you were able to have automate performing cut and pastes between applications without your human formed cut and pastes being interfered with.

Weasel lets say automation is performing task on a window and you with mouse as human moves it why should this result in failure.

My problem is most cases you are needing to absolute location window for automation you are already stuffed because this is not a reliable move.

Yes you see a whole screen but it does not make sense really for the automation to be interact with the full screen not if you don't want

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Multi-pointer_X

This is not a new concept having multi humans on the same screen with invidual mouse and invidual keyboards how are you going to make this work and be stable Weasel.

Yes MPX is a later prototype of the same thing.

Weasel this is where you are in trouble. Lot of the macro solutions you would be using are not design to be secure or reliable. Secure and reliable multi user on one screen has interactions correctly controlled. Automation really is another user on the system with you and if you want to stable and secure you need per window/applications selection of interactivity. .

Yes do note I write single human because multi humans on same screen same problem as human with automation on the same screen if you want to secure and reliable.

Big thing you don't want users actions with program interfering with automation actions with program and you don't want automation actions with program interfering with users interactions with program.

Weasel basically I know what reliable automation looks like and that what I want not broken garbage. Majority of the automation uses of absolute postilion don't make any sense when you goal is reliable automation.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220402150654/https://insitu.lri.fr/metisse/

By the way a lot of what people do with Macros is no near what historically has been proven possible Weasel. metisse had the feature of being able to merge multi applications windows together to form a single window.

[Weasel]

What single human should see and what automation should see happen to be different things.

I have worked with the pre 1994 proxy solutions. These you were able to have automate performing cut and pastes between applications without your human formed cut and pastes being interfered with.

Weasel lets say automation is performing task on a window and you with mouse as human moves it why should this result in failure.

My problem is most cases you are needing to absolute location window for automation you are already stuffed because this is not a reliable move.

Yes you see a whole screen but it does not make sense really for the automation to be interact with the full screen not if you don't want

What do you mean? Automation is mine and should be able to do everything I do, it's basically automating my work.

Have you ever heard about automating multiple applications for convenience based on smart personal macros? So they pop on screen exactly as YOU want them when they do some complicated heuristics exactly tailored for you because YOU wrote them?

Stop thinking about one app-one script. It's one script-10 apps and 20 windows on the screen.

[Weasel]

The thing is I am not putting any window on the screen with a script.

Ok but who asked?

Not interested in helping you out with that. You find your own way. I want you to overcome your shortcomings and learn to do things by yourself. Take a stimulant, drink a cup of dark coffee after getting a good sleep. But I am not sure what you will do with the stink, POS.

Can't find own way when it's not possible by design.

This is a claim, and it's a FACT. And from it results that Wayland is crippled since it lacks it.

If you believe it's wrong, feel free to prove it wrong, as I said countless times already. Facts are measurable, after all, so the proof should be quite easy.

That's how factual arguments work, dummy. They are not shitty opinions like yours.