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

[mrg666]

as I said countless times already.

LOL, anybody cares what you say? I don't

I don't care if you believe me either. Keep saying things. What were you saying, idiot?

[oiaohm]

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

I mentioned metisse. One script controlling 10 applications with 20 windows on screen is in fact child play. Take those 10 applications with 20 windows now Weasel weld them that they appear to be a single application with unified interface that a user thinks they are in fact interfacing with a single application. Then the user is able to create their own macros on top of this and not detect that the application they are dealing with is a fake that been created for pure UX testing/prototyping.. Yes working in relative space is second nature at this level of macro work.

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

This shows a fundamental miss understanding.

I will give you basic example in physical world. Your script macro is your secretary and you have a single typewriter(application being controlled). Now both you are your secretary are attempting to create document at same time. Yes fighting and attempting to do what you want on the typewriter neither of you are going to get anywhere. You need a system to agree to share the resource in predictable dependable way.

You are not thinking of your automation as it own entity and as a entity it need to be able to allocated resources in this case application control access in way that you don't end up fighting with it.

Now lets say for some reason you for that 10 app 20 application automation you now want to run a second copy. Zones under Wayland would allow you to spin up second copy in it own zone. Macro being absolutely the same as user means user cannot decide to run it multi times like an application.

Weasel you are not use to turning automation into virtual applications that the user can run as many instances as they want with zero conflict so providing user with the most tools to get their job done.

Weasel some of my cases have 10+ applications and 20+ different automation scripts triggering on different thing performing tasks on those applications. Yes this is the script are performing multi step task on applications when they have control of it.

Weasel your idea of complex is child play. At my level of complex important feature is access control so that two or more multi step macros don't run on a single application at the same time generated mangled result. This is why I would at some point love wayland extension or dbus system to ask for applications socket while marco is holding this socket it knows another macro or user is not going to interfere with a multi step set of instructions to application.

Multi core systems to be able to massively multi thread your automation you need application control locks of some form.

[bhptitotoss]

X11 was useful for its time but it's exciting to see the vast simplification which is Wayland finally become usable for (almost) everyone. Unfortunately the culture of when X11 was created was not one which emphasized quality, speed, simplicity, security, or really much positive. It is what it is though that's just how it was back then. Programmers seriously thought they couldn't make mistakes and it shows.

[avis]

X11 was useful for its time but it's exciting to see the vast simplification which is Wayland finally become usable for (almost) everyone. Unfortunately the culture of when X11 was created was not one which emphasized quality, speed, simplicity, security, or really much positive. It is what it is though that's just how it was back then. Programmers seriously thought they couldn't make mistakes and it shows.

"Unfortunately the culture of when" Wayland "was created" ... ah, sh1t, it doesn't have a reference implementation, never mind.

FTFY.

X11 is vastly more useful for everyone unlike Wayland which is now useful only for KDE (and less so Gnome) users.

Your post is a great example of "I've heard good things bout Wayland but I didn't understand anything".

[access]

[…]

Enjoy Wayland! F it and and this is the last time I've visited the topic that is choke full of false arguments, lies, dodging, and hypocrisy.

Pots and kettles

[mrg666]

X11 was useful for its time but it's exciting to see the vast simplification which is Wayland finally become usable for (almost) everyone. Unfortunately the culture of when X11 was created was not one which emphasized quality, speed, simplicity, security, or really much positive. It is what it is though that's just how it was back then. Programmers seriously thought they couldn't make mistakes and it shows.

I can only talk for myself and I am done with X11. With FC40, X11 is not even installed on my computer anymore. I have not seen a single application or feature that Wayland could not provide/run yet. And the Plasma/.Wayland/AMD GPU performance is phenomenal, all games I run (and that is Cyberpunk 2077) are at native Windows performance level. Not a single crash in anything.

[mrg666]

"Unfortunately the culture of when" Wayland "was created" ... ah, sh1t, it doesn't have a reference implementation, never mind.

FTFY.

X11 is vastly more useful for everyone unlike Wayland which is now useful only for KDE (and less so Gnome) users.

Your post is a great example of "I've heard good things bout Wayland but I didn't understand anything".

That post you linked is so stupid. I wonder which idiot posted it.

[oiaohm]

"Unfortunately the culture of when" Wayland "was created" ... ah, sh1t, it doesn't have a reference implementation, never mind..

https://wayland.pages.freedesktop.org/weston/

Weston is the reference implementation of a Wayland compositor, as well as a useful environment in and of itself.

Saying a false statement does not make it true. Wayland reference implementation like it or not is Weston. Of course another feature of Weston is that Weston will run nested inside another Wayland compositor.

Are you complaining that the reference implementation is not feature complete enough.

[Weasel]

I don't care if you believe me either. Keep saying things. What were you saying, idiot?

Yawn. I don't give a flying fuck about believing anything, I know since everything I say is facts, moron.

[Weasel]

I mentioned metisse. One script controlling 10 applications with 20 windows on screen is in fact child play. Take those 10 applications with 20 windows now Weasel weld them that they appear to be a single application with unified interface that a user thinks they are in fact interfacing with a single application. Then the user is able to create their own macros on top of this and not detect that the application they are dealing with is a fake that been created for pure UX testing/prototyping.. Yes working in relative space is second nature at this level of macro work.

That's all well and good if you want to weld them together, but I don't. Welding them together only needs relative positioning, so of course it's fine for you. But that's the point. I don't.

Imagine your damn screen is an entire UI and you want to position some "elements" on the left and some "elements" on the right. The right aligned elements are NOT positioned relative to the left-aligned elements, they're positioned relative to the right of the damn screen.

You need absolute or basically screen-relative positioning to do this. What is so hard to get?

This shows a fundamental miss understanding.

I will give you basic example in physical world. Your script macro is your secretary and you have a single typewriter(application being controlled). Now both you are your secretary are attempting to create document at same time. Yes fighting and attempting to do what you want on the typewriter neither of you are going to get anywhere. You need a system to agree to share the resource in predictable dependable way.

You are not thinking of your automation as it own entity and as a entity it need to be able to allocated resources in this case application control access in way that you don't end up fighting with it.

Now lets say for some reason you for that 10 app 20 application automation you now want to run a second copy. Zones under Wayland would allow you to spin up second copy in it own zone. Macro being absolutely the same as user means user cannot decide to run it multi times like an application.

Weasel you are not use to turning automation into virtual applications that the user can run as many instances as they want with zero conflict so providing user with the most tools to get their job done.

Weasel some of my cases have 10+ applications and 20+ different automation scripts triggering on different thing performing tasks on those applications. Yes this is the script are performing multi step task on applications when they have control of it.

Weasel your idea of complex is child play. At my level of complex important feature is access control so that two or more multi step macros don't run on a single application at the same time generated mangled result. This is why I would at some point love wayland extension or dbus system to ask for applications socket while marco is holding this socket it knows another macro or user is not going to interfere with a multi step set of instructions to application.

Multi core systems to be able to massively multi thread your automation you need application control locks of some form.

The macro doesn't step on my toes because it's literally my own macro, I wrote it exactly for me, there's nothing to "trust" in it or anything like that. It's like I'm working with myself. I don't step on my own toes when I do.

Anyway you obviously don't get what it means to need screen-relative positioning, which is basically what "absolute" positioning means. It's not relative to any other window.