Ubuntu 17.10 Continues Refining Its GNOME Shell Theme

[Gusar]

Gusar. As I said already; You have to let go of the narratives.

That does not explain the discrepancy in your thinking. Why is this ok now, while it wasn't when Canonical was doing it?

And it is not Wayland per se that adds duplicated code and effort. That would be the excessive amount of compositors, NIHers and egos.

How *dare* people not use Gnome and instead want something else. The *nerve* of those people. I mean who do they think they are??

When you decrease the amount of compositors you get fewer problems and less sh.t to deal with. Ideally we just keep one compositor.

But of course! Nothing else may exist, but the great Gnome! All hail before the greatness of the great Gnome and bow down before its excellency! Oh great, now I have the "Kneel before Zod!" scene going on in my head...

Do that and you won't need to discuss this SSD protocol anyway because Wayland imply the use of CSD.

Do that, and mpv will *still* not have window borders. Neither will SDL applications.

If your code doesn't solve real problems and is just a manifestation to hipster ego driven development, then you are on your own.

SSDs do solve a real problem. A real problem that was reported several times by users of your beloved Gnome. So stuff your "if"...


Basically, you've devolved to just repeating the same nonsense about some "narrative" over and over, because you don't have real answers. (and no, "only Gnome should exist" is not a real answer)

[Gusar]

If you want to avoid duplication then use the standard compositor mutter as is.

This statement fails on two grounds:

One, Mutter is in no way any sort of "standard".
Two, Wayland isn't Mutter.

Best part is that GNOME doesn't need to waste time reviewing whatever stuff they come up with..

"Best" for whom? The Gnome users that don't have window borders with mpv, for example? Tell them, how that's "best" for them...


So no, I haven't missed any point. The failure is all on you - "only Gnome should exist" is not a real answer.

[Gusar]

Mutter is by far the most used Wayland compositor. Like >99%.

[citation needed]

So that is the standard.

Yeah, no. In your head, maybe.

You want to enjoy diversity but won't pay the price of duplication.

Err, the point of properly specced protocols is to *avoid* duplication. But of course it's no surprise you actually have no clue about what you're talking about.

[starshipeleven]

You missed the point. If you want to avoid duplication then use the standard compositor mutter as is. If you feel adventurous; good luck on defining your own protocols. Best part is that GNOME doesn't need to waste time reviewing whatever stuff they come up with..

You missed the point, the whole reason of Wayland is that it allows people to have their own compositors catering to their needs.

It's the whole point of having a standardized interface between compositors and kernel. Othwewise you'd just have any compositor to have and maintain his kernel interface for its own needs.

[starshipeleven]

Well no one showed up to spec those protocols. Except GNOME so they just did it.

And Intel, and Qt people, and others.

[starshipeleven]

Talk is cheap. Show me the code/specs.

You go first, as it's you that claimed it's "only GNOME" before my claim.

[starshipeleven]

YOU missed the point. Gusar's original complaint was that GNOME did their implementation without consulting with all the alternative compositor developers. So he wants GNOME to hold back to avoid duplication and somehow this should end well with common protocols and diversity. And that is about the most stupid narratives that exist in Linux development..

no, YOU missed the point. Wayland's point is being a COMMON interface used by different compositors. That's the whole reason it is a standard and not a shitty mostly-private API that breaks every other week like GNOME's extensions API.

[starshipeleven]

git.gnome.org Wayland specific code is all over the place now authored by dozens of people.

No, no no. You claimed "no one showed up to spec those protocols. Except GNOME so they just did it."

Now go prove that the only Wayland protocol specs and extensions were writtend by GNOME, I'll wait.

[starshipeleven]

Yeah go look in the the weston and wayland commit logs. RH all over the place for desktop stuff.

Yeah, go in Weston and Wayland commit logs, Qt and Intel all over the place too (Intel more on older stuff admittedly).

And no Wayland was never promised as a common project. It has been kept simple for a reason.

The entire concept of having a standardized interface (Wayland) is because the project is common. If it was not, GNOME could have made his own kernel interface and stuff (like say Canonical's Mir) and we would not be having this discussion.

See Intel here https://01.org/wayland

[Gusar]

Well no one showed up to spec those protocols. Except GNOME so they just did it.

They did what, write specs? No, they most certainly did *not*. They made a private implementation. Contrary to KDE, who did not make a private SSD implementation - they properly specced it, so that other compositors can implement a compatible solution, which Sway then did.

You can't complain about how this went down when you are a NOSHOW.

You can't show up to something that doesn't exist. If Gnome proposed a spec and no one showed up, only then would your comment make sense. But that's not what's happening.

No need to discuss arcane arts like SSD.

Again, tell that to all the users *of your precious Gnome* who are complaining about mpv not having window borders. Tell those users that they're suffering because expecting proper functionality is "arcane arts".

The world moved on.

Gnome is far, far from "the world". Even confining the scope to just Linux, Gnome is not nearly "the world". And when looking at a broader scope to encompass what could be considered "the world", there's Windows... where the compositor automatically assigns a SSD to an application if said application does not draw its own decoration client-side.

So your statement is factually completely false.

And no Wayland was never promised as a common project.

LOL, that's among the most absurd statements you have made. What else is Wayland meant to be, a private display server, like Mir?

It's exactly why Mir was blasted and Wayland is embraced, because Wayland is *not* a private display server of a single desktop. Wayland is a common, specified protocol. Or maybe better said a collection of protocols to handle windowing and input.

So he wants GNOME to hold back to avoid duplication and somehow this should end well with common protocols and diversity.

You're either intentionally or through ignorance misinterpreting my words to mean I supposedly want to "hold back" anything, because I never said such a thing. Nothing whatsoever is being "held back" by specifying a protocol, so that compatible alternative implementations can be written

Gnome and KDE and others have collaborated plenty of times in the past. A lot of the freedesktop.org specifications are the result of those collaborations. Claiming that Gnome was "held back" due to that is just plain absurd.