Mozilla Firefox 116 Now Available - Capable Of Wayland-Only Builds

[archkde]

Bullshit.

Wayland is not an evolution of X11. They are different things that are built on different principles.

Wayland is, by all intents and purposes, X12. Even the developers are the same. What you're imagining would be more like X11.7.

[avis]

And being forced to have Xorg installed even if not used is "freedom"?

Firefox with X11 dependencies does not force you to have X.org installed. 20 likes for an outright false statement. That's the level of discourse we're having here.

Again, I said Linux users are obsessed with breaking backward compatibility thus having the least amount of software available and you just went ahead and confirmed that. And good luck attracting people to the OS where backward compatibility is ridiculed and called "evil". That's all you need to know about Linux/Phoronix users.

face-fucking-palm.jpeg

[Monsterovich]

Wayland is, by all intents and purposes, X12. Even the developers are the same. What you're imagining would be more like X11.7.

Repeating that nonsense a hundred times won't make it true. X12 is a promotional gimmick made for the sake of marketing. In fact, Wayland is not even close to Xorg. Not one f*cking inch.

[Monsterovich]

Not true about X12. You need to read the https://www.x.org/wiki/Development/X12/ no where does it say it will be fully backwards compatible and this is critical

So? I already understand everything about Wayland, and I can see in reality that it is a tool for destroying GNU/Linux on the desktop.

There is a large amount of false in this. Wayland project provides libraries the "libwayland" bit particularly libwayland-server that almost 100 percent of all Wayland compositors use.

Which is 1/100th of the features you need for a DE.

Remember X11 protocol does not forbid people from implementing there own X11 server and people use to do that.

But it doesn't force you to do it either, so people went the easiest way: a unified server. Wayland has total fragmentation out of the box.

System tray was moved to dbus by X11 DE before wayland started. D-Bus full name is "Desktop Bus" in fact wayland first developers considered using D-Bus instead of developing their own wayland protocol. Overhead d-bus back then made that idea rejected. Remember this was before d-bus broker and other performance increasing optimizations. Maybe you would be happier if instead of Wayland protocol they had gone fully in with D-Bus only?

Xorg doesn't force you to use D-Bus. This is just an option. Wayland doesn't have a normal way to capture the screen by default, so portals and D-Bus are a must. Everything is going to a logical Redhat-owned vendor-lock. Soon it will all be nailed down to systemd and it will be just the way we all "like" it.

[-MacNuke-]

Firefox with X11 dependencies does not force you to have X.org installed. 20 likes for an outright false statement. That's the level of discourse we're having here.

Because those 20 people where smart enough to figure out that "Xorg" does not mean the display server application only.

And good luck attracting people to the OS where backward compatibility is ridiculed and called "evil".

I am not a missionary for operating systems. I can't care less what other people want to use. I just want the steaming pile of dog shit named "Xorg" (with all its libraries) removed from my system.

[archkde]

Repeating that nonsense a hundred times won't make it true. X12 is a promotional gimmick made for the sake of marketing. In fact, Wayland is not even close to Xorg. Not one f*cking inch.

I did not claim that Wayland is close to Xorg. Quite the opposite actually, same as Xorg is not close to X10. Just don't call the X11.7 you want X12.

[avis]

Wayland is, by all intents and purposes, X12. Even the developers are the same. What you're imagining would be more like X11.7.

Have you read this page? Wayland is not X12, it's a brand new thing which has nothing common with X11 aside from being a graphics rendering/presentation protocol. Almost everything which existed in X11 is not present in Wayland in any shape or form. And of course, network transparency was thrown out of the window from the get go.

Because those 20 people where smart enough to figure out that "Xorg" does not mean the display server application only.

I am not a missionary for operating systems. I can't care less what other people want to use. I just want the steaming pile of dog shit named "Xorg" (with all its libraries) removed from my system.

You specifically said "being forced to have Xorg installed". You did not say a fucking word about libX11 or any related articles. People in this topic are obsessed with not having the Xorg server installed. God, the level of argumentation has completely fallen through the floor. I'm bloody tired of fans and people who hate backward compatibility and believe not having it is a ... virtue.

This is just insanity. Linux users shout and discredit themselves from every rooftop, and show how hateful they are. No, not a single Wayland proponent here has done shit for Wayland but, boy, oh boy, you are so proud of trying to destroy something you did not create and which has served people for well over 40 years and continues to do so. This is abomination. While people in Windows can enjoy running applications written 30 years ago, Linux fans scream "we do not need no stinking compatibility".

Right now Xorg works better for the vast majority of people and use cases than Wayland. That's a fact. You know why? Because the vast majority of people continue to use it. So much for "dog shit named Xorg". Of course, it didn't occur to you that Xorg and X11 were written by actual people and you just insulted them for no reasons.

This is fucking despicable, atrocious, shameful and I'm just out.

[oiaohm]

Which is 1/100th of the features you need for a DE.

This is true for the X.org X11 server as well. So what are you talking about.

But it doesn't force you to do it either, so people went the easiest way: a unified server. Wayland has total fragmentation out of the box.

From day one weston was provided with wayland as the reference compositor. Wayland did not techically force people to fragment either they choose to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_display_servers#X11

Just look at this list and wake up X11 historically fragmented as well and even today we have OpenBSD developers making their own X11 server.

Xorg doesn't force you to use D-Bus. This is just an option. Wayland doesn't have a normal way to capture the screen by default, so portals and D-Bus are a must.

Have you never considered how pipewire works there is a reason why Wayland protocol does not have screen capture and its not what you are presuming.

https://ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-devices.html#kmsgrab

Never crossed you mind that you have kmsgrab and other dmabuf based items you can use for screen capture. There is one big catch to use all these you need DRM master or CAP_SYS_ADMIN privilege.

So yes you can capture under wayland without using portals or dbus using the generic solutions in KMS/DMABUF stuff. Pipewire job is to be the multiplexer of these interfaces and dbus is doing the part of checking if program should have the access.

Screen capture missing from wayland protocol turns out to be the old saying "don't reinvent the wheel" because screen capture already existed in the lower protocols wayland uses. Yes the generic implementation of portals you can screen capture the framebuffer tty terminals by the way because it will using generic KMS/DMABUF. Yes most people have not noticed you can set up pipewire/dbus screen capture to keep on capturing when you change terminals so you could like start screen capturing on X11 pres ctrl-alt-f1 to go to text based terminal type something press the keys to switch back and have complete video of all actions.

Learn to stop assuming things Monsterovich. You missed something critical. How could you confirm weston compositor was making a tear free output if you could not screen capture? see problem here. Functional screen capture is a required part of weston development and people never followed with how were they doing it when it was not in the protocol.

Little catch here as well what you want in your screen capture with wayland compositor or x11 server?
1) What thought they sent to the GPU for output
2) What they really sent to the GPU for output.
Option 1 you implement in the X11 protocol/Wayland protocol. Yes people did propose extensions to wayland to screen capture and that was a demoed fault with the sample code that the result was not always seen what was truly sent to GPU for output. Option 2 you implement screen capture using the KMS/DMABUF this lead you to portals and pipewire like solution due to needing permissions and most likely wanting to multiplex the output. Option 2 also requires getting all GPU vendors on the same page with interfaces say hello Nvidia problem.

To the Wayland developers it make absolutely no sense to implement screen capture in the wayland protocol as this is just reinventing the wheel with something that risks not being truthful.

[-MacNuke-]

You specifically said "being forced to have Xorg installed". You did not say a fucking word about libX11 or any related articles.

I am sorry that you were not smart enough.

People in this topic are obsessed with not having the Xorg server installed.

Personal choice and freedom is the reason I am using Open Source software. Why do you want to take away these choices and the freedom from me?

you are so proud of trying to destroy something you did not create and which has served people for well over 40 years and continues to do so. This is abomination.

First: I do not destroy anything. It is not my fault that nobody wants to maintain that steaming pile of dog shit named "Xorg". Pretty much every developer realized that the whole codebase is broken beyond repair. Second: Rocks served people very well for hundreds of years, yet I am using a hammer nowadays since it works better.

While people in Windows can enjoy running applications written 30 years ago, Linux fans scream "we do not need no stinking compatibility".

That's a good one. I have a ton of software from 30 years ago that does not run on Windows 11 natively.

Right now Xorg works better for the vast majority of people and use cases than Wayland. That's a fact. You know why? Because the vast majority of people continue to use it.

Xorg does not work better for me. Using more than one monitor on Xorg is a fucking nightmare.

So much for "dog shit named Xorg". Of course, it didn't occur to you that Xorg and X11 were written by actual people and you just insulted them for no reasons.

Those people who wrote Xorg are now working on Wayland. By saying Wayland is bad you are insulting the same people.

[Svyatko]

With Firefox 116 this bug was solved: startup crash on old CPUs caused by using AVX instructions for ordinary x86-64 architecture (= x86-64-v1).
Bug was caused by gcc 13 + LTO: in LTO stage gcc 13 uses arbitrary architecture level code path for Skia's inline assembly code.
More info:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1838323

https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1212101

https://bugs.gentoo.org/908412