Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

XDG Top-Level Drag Protocol Approved For Wayland

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post

    so in other words you will use a protocol that uses protocols to solve things but refuse to use other protocols that also uses protocols to solve things?
    this tells me you dont know enough about X11 more than anything, X11 doesnt need to be ammended a gazillion times for each functionality, and most importantly everyone gets the same features, unlike wayland where each DE has to reimplement everything

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by DumbFsck View Post
      Edit: I just want to say to everyone that I'm sorry for feeding the troll...setup the beetle would win 10 out of 10 races, and I would still argue the Ferrari is a faster car.
      Beautifully put!

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by davidbepo View Post

        this tells me you dont know enough about X11 more than anything, X11 doesnt need to be ammended a gazillion times for each functionality, and most importantly everyone gets the same features, unlike wayland where each DE has to reimplement everything
        That has nothing to do with protocol whatsoever and everything to do with everybody using Xorg.

        What's with people thinking that a protocol could even inforce a "there can be only one" policy on its implementation?

        And DEs don't have to reimplement everything of they don't want to. Raspberry Pi OS has LXDE running on top of Wayfire and they previous ran it on top of Mutter. Wlroots exists specifically to ease the development of compositors.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post

          so in other words you will use a protocol that uses protocols to solve things but refuse to use other protocols that also uses protocols to solve things?
          I said "superior" not "inferior". When I first started using Linux I didn't know what X11, Xorg, Wayland, or a display server was but when I unknowingly when from Wayland (when running Nouveau)to X11 (after installing Nvidia proprietary drivers), it was a noticeably shittier experience. I actually thought something broke.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Myownfriend View Post

            Not sure if you're aware of this but Windows and macOS are operating systems. X11 and Wayland are display server protocols. There's a lot of things that operating systems can do that X11 and Wayland can't because they're not remotely equivalent and comparisons can't be made between them. In fact Windows and macOS don't even have display server protocols, they have compositors (that include the window manager just like a Wayland compositor), and the way that applications interact with the compositor and with each other are handled through multiple APIs, not just one.

            Do you want to expand upon the sane things that Wayland doesn't do that it should?

            I'm assuming you're gonna mention the usual things like screen sharing which requires permissions in macOS and is done through an audio/video framework similar to Pipewire so it's in no way similar to X11. Windows 10 added a graphics capture API that provides a secure dialog for picking a capture source... just like portals and not at all like X11. You're probably gonna mention global shortcuts, even though an app does them in X11 by polling keyboard input like keylogger and Window and macOS require global shortcuts to be registered with the OS just like the Global Shortcuts Portal allows apps and compositors to register shortcuts.
            I was obviously talking about the display servers/compositors in those OSes. They don't have a specific name, so I couldn't do that, since they're closed source. Derp.

            I couldn't care less if there's a new API that requires permissions because the old API still exists. AutoHotkey still works the same way. etc.

            So how about querying absolute window positions or positioning your window wherever the app wants it to (imagine it's a script written by you to automate your workflow, yes scripts are apps too!). Funny how that's missing from your list.

            FYI AutoHotkey scripts can do all of these things on Windows and on Linux with Wine and X11. Something gotta be right there eh?

            And please for the love of god don't be like the typical clowns who think AutoHotkey is just about hotkeys... you can write scripts with zero hotkeys...

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Weasel View Post
              I was obviously talking about the display servers/compositors in those OSes. They don't have a specific name, so I couldn't do that, since they're closed source. Derp.
              Acutally, they do have specific names. Windows's compositor is named DWM and macOS's compositor is named Quartz.

              Originally posted by Weasel View Post
              So how about querying absolute window positions or positioning your window wherever the app wants it to (imagine it's a script written by you to automate your workflow, yes scripts are apps too!). Funny how that's missing from your list.
              If you ignore the obstructionist, "ignore the original promise" approach GNOME has been taking, the original vision of Wayland was that only applications blessed with a DE-level equivalent to sudo would have access to those privileged APIs, so "I know better" developers couldn't make a mess of your desktop by trying to override your efforts to put windows where you want.

              (Something that is a problem on X11, where I find myself having to use "Force" rather than "Set Initially" or "Remember" in KWin Window Rules, and then just live with windows even I can't move around without editing the rule.)

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Weasel View Post
                I was obviously talking about the display servers/compositors in those OSes. They don't have a specific name, so I couldn't do that, since they're closed source. Derp.
                As ssokolow pointed out the compositors themselves do have names, there's just no Wayland/X11 equivalent.

                Originally posted by Weasel View Post
                I couldn't care less if there's a new API that requires permissions because the old API still exists.
                That's a really bad approach to security. I'm sure you would agree with that, no? Even if you don't agree with the approach you'd have to admit that.

                Originally posted by Weasel View Post
                AutoHotkey still works the same way. etc.

                So how about querying absolute window positions or positioning your window wherever the app wants it to (imagine it's a script written by you to automate your workflow, yes scripts are apps too!). Funny how that's missing from your list.
                Nobody is saying that something like AutoHotkey shouldn't work, or that any of these legitimate use-cases shouldn't work. Can you make the case that AutoHotKey would be worse off if it required at least some simple permission to work? Anybody who's honest with themselves should be able to see how giving something like AutoHotkey complete freedom over your desktop without asking the user is kind of dumb.

                When it comes to window automation, my opinion is that there are better ways to do that then at the display protocol level because in many ways, the way these scripts want to interact with the desktop doesn't have anything to do with the specifics of the client/compositor interaction. An automation script wants to view it's task from the user's perspective and, to my knowledge, things like XTest do things by temporarily taking control away from the human user. I feel like automation could be implemented in a display-server-agnostic way and should be done in a way that treats the script as a second automated user and not as a temporary replacement to the human user. The human user should not lose control for any amount of time.

                Also are you skipping over that the idea that global shortcuts needed to be registered with the OS and not something that the client forces on the user by keylogging is something that Windows and Wayland have in common here?

                Originally posted by Weasel View Post
                FYI AutoHotkey scripts can do all of these things on Windows and on Linux with Wine and X11. Something gotta be right there eh?
                "Windows and macOS are closed-source and combined they have over 90% of the market. Something's gotta be right there eh?"

                That's a dumb way of looking at things, made even more dumb but that fact that you're comparing Windows and a think meant to be a compatibility layer with Windows. These aren't two projects hoping to do their own things that arrived at the same conclusion. One of these things exists to emulate the other.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by davidbepo View Post

                  this tells me you dont know enough about X11 more than anything, X11 doesnt need to be ammended a gazillion times for each functionality, and most importantly everyone gets the same features, unlike wayland where each DE has to reimplement everything
                  X11 needs to be extended exactly in this way and have been a gazillion times before. You not being a developer are just being confused by X11 calling these things extensions and Wayland calling them protocols.

                  Originally posted by ssokolow View Post

                  I suspect their issue with Wayland is the bikeshedding exemplified by the discussion around the proposal to enable X11-style Firefox PiP windows, where the argument is between people who do and don't believe it's viable to lock the protocol down against being repurposed for other things by application developers so much that it requires a new revision every time Firefox wants to introduce a new kind of pushbutton to the PiP window.

                  (I'm on the "If you do that, Firefox devs will probably just ignore that it exists... and do you really want to put that much logic into the compositor?" side of things.)
                  ‚ÄčI'm on the side that thinks that the mere existence of such a discussion is why Wayland is better since it will lead to informed change and not just "we try this quick hack" that later will bite your ass. Now avoiding ass-biting is never assured, but at least the risk is minimized.
                  Last edited by F.Ultra; 01 February 2024, 06:23 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Myownfriend View Post
                    That's a really bad approach to security. I'm sure you would agree with that, no? Even if you don't agree with the approach you'd have to admit that.
                    No it's not. Removing them would break old apps, and backwards compatibility is more important. Of course, the thing is that malware can also use them, so it's pointless to design more secure APIs unless it's securing it from the developer bugs rather than malice. Those are 2 different things.

                    Originally posted by Myownfriend View Post
                    Nobody is saying that something like AutoHotkey shouldn't work, or that any of these legitimate use-cases shouldn't work. Can you make the case that AutoHotKey would be worse off if it required at least some simple permission to work? Anybody who's honest with themselves should be able to see how giving something like AutoHotkey complete freedom over your desktop without asking the user is kind of dumb.
                    No I completely agree that a permissions based system is the proper way. But functionality always trumps security. Period.

                    If you have permissions which allow functionality and be secure, then that's the way forward. That's what Arcan does, and why I consider it the proper successor to X11. I never said X11 is the best, it's just better than Wayland because Wayland is crippled by design.

                    It doesn't matter how secure something is if it removes functionality. Extreme case: unplug your internet or network drivers. Then you are immune from remote hacks and security exploits. Does that sound like something a reasonable person would cheer for? Yes, remove internet connection, not simply restrict it with permissions. Wayland removes those essential features with literally no way to get them back.

                    Originally posted by Myownfriend View Post
                    When it comes to window automation, my opinion is that there are better ways to do that then at the display protocol level because in many ways, the way these scripts want to interact with the desktop doesn't have anything to do with the specifics of the client/compositor interaction. An automation script wants to view it's task from the user's perspective and, to my knowledge, things like XTest do things by temporarily taking control away from the human user. I feel like automation could be implemented in a display-server-agnostic way and should be done in a way that treats the script as a second automated user and not as a temporary replacement to the human user. The human user should not lose control for any amount of time.
                    That goes both ways, you know.

                    If you write your script and now can't do things with your script then didn't you just lose control?

                    Originally posted by Myownfriend View Post
                    Also are you skipping over that the idea that global shortcuts needed to be registered with the OS and not something that the client forces on the user by keylogging is something that Windows and Wayland have in common here?
                    wdym? AutoHotkey can register hotkeys without any OS settings every single time. Each script can register its own hotkeys, even dynamically. Of course, you have to run with enough privilege, but that's ok. I don't mind permissions as long as they allow functionality in the end. That's not Wayland. That's Arcan.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by ssokolow View Post
                      If you ignore the obstructionist, "ignore the original promise" approach GNOME has been taking, the original vision of Wayland was that only applications blessed with a DE-level equivalent to sudo would have access to those privileged APIs, so "I know better" developers couldn't make a mess of your desktop by trying to override your efforts to put windows where you want.
                      Yes, that would have been completely fine to me. Arcan does something similar, but uses file-level permissions (virtual filesystem), standard unix perms, which IMO is great and customizable with basic tools without installing bloated shit.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X