PCSX2 Emulator Disables Wayland Support By Default

[phoronix]

Phoronix: PCSX2 Emulator Disables Wayland Support By Default

While more applications continue enabling Wayland support and getting into a shape by default, the PCSX2 open-source PlayStation 2 emulator recently moved in the opposite direction: disabling Wayland support for their distributed builds...

https://www.phoronix.com/news/PCSX2-Disables-Wayland-Default

[mirmirmir]

I can't help but laugh seeing someone behave that way

[patrick1946]

He is mostly complaining about the Qt implementation of CSD. Actually his language sounds not very professional too.

[brad0]

Not surprising in the slightest.

[bple2137]

I feel tired already before the usual crap flood has even begun

[schmidtbag]

Sounds like the average Phoronix commenter in their teen years.

[ezst036]

This is going to give a lot of developers heartburn because so many of them do not want to port their applications over to Wayland in order for their application to function correctly on the Wayland framework.

But surely, there will be one or several of commenters after this who will blame Wayland, not the developers who have not yet completed their job of doing the porting work.

At the end of the day, it's simply "tech debt". The world has moved on from X11.

[ssokolow]

The merge doesn't strip out the Wayland code but is simply disabling it for the default Flatpak and AppImage builds of this game emulator. Those building PCSX2 can continue to enjoy Wayland support if so desired.

By their own statement of "For the Flatpaks, users can re-enable it with flatseal if they really want the crappy experience.", they're not disabling the Wayland code for their Flatpak builds, they're just removing the line from the Flatpak build manifest that grants access to the Wayland socket, causing their code to select X11 instead.

He is mostly complaining about the Qt implementation of CSD. Actually his language sounds not very professional too.

No, I recognize some of those complaints. He's complaining about limitations of the Wayland compositors. (i.e. "We don't want to have to deal with 'I tried to run PCSX2 on a 486 and it wouldn't run. It must be PCSX2 that is broken!'-style complaints.")

• "stupid obsession" with client side decorations in GNOME ⇒ Every other platform on earth that expects windows to have decorations just gives you decorations as part of the platform API and you don't have to care about how they're drawn. GNOME expects you to care about that.
• "the inability to position windows" ⇒ Wayland currently has no API for this. There's currently discussion over what subset of that general ability is even legitimate for an application developer to want.
• various "hacks" ⇒ Too generic for me to say, but I trust they're probably right about this too.
• NVIDIA driver issues ⇒ It's a known fact that nVidia dragged their heels for a decade, pulled every dirty trick in the book to avoid having to implement GBM, and are now finally stuck trying to catch up.
• broken global menus ⇒ I've never used them, so I don't keep up on this.Wouldn't surprise me.though. (Even on my Power Mac G4 which I run Mac OS 9.2.2 on for retro-hobby stuff, I don't like the visual disconnect between the menu and what it affects, and I don't like that it takes two clicks to open a menu in a non-focused application, or possibly more if you want to use something from Finder's menus and you've got something fullscreened so you need to resort to the application switcher drop-down. Global menus were designed in the pre-MultiFinder era when you had multiple windows but they always all belonged to the same application, and a tiny little 9" CRT running at 512x342 where you needed to save all the space you could.)
• and other bugs ⇒ Again, too generic for me to say.

[Quackdoc]

I feel that, I've seen quite a few people just give up, realistically xwayland is good enough on kde anyways, gnome users can suffer like always, and compositors wlroots... well they dont make up enough people to realistically care.

I myself have taken that route, if the application works on wayland great, but im not going to put any effort into making sure this is the case, it's just not worth it

[jacob]

• "stupid obsession" with client side decorations in GNOME ⇒ Every other platform on earth that expects windows to have decorations just gives you decorations as part of the platform API and you don't have to care about how they're drawn. GNOME expects you to care about that.

It doesn't expect you to care about that. Create an ApplicationWindow and voila, it's there complete with decorations and all the bells and whistles. This complaint sounds more like the "stupid obsession" with not using the expected APIs rather than some actual problem with those APIs.