Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.raspberry-pi > #38169 > unrolled thread

odd windowing issue (perl Tk)

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.raspberry-pi

Contents

  odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> - 2026-07-08 12:03 +0100
    Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-07-08 17:04 +0000
      Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> - 2026-07-08 19:57 +0100
    Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-08 17:33 +0000
      Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> - 2026-07-08 19:54 +0100
    Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-08 23:17 +0000
      Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-07-09 02:46 +0000
        Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-09 04:34 +0000
          Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2026-07-09 11:14 +0100
            Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2026-07-09 18:31 +0100
              Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-09 22:59 +0000
                Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-10 02:54 +0000
            Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-09 18:29 +0000
            Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-09 22:58 +0000
              Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2026-07-11 12:32 +0100
                Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-11 14:05 +0100
                  Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> - 2026-07-11 19:37 +0100
                    Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-11 22:08 +0100
                    Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-12 00:01 +0000
                  Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-07-12 03:55 +0000
                    Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-12 05:53 +0000
                      Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-07-12 16:14 +0000
                        Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-12 21:42 +0000
                          Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-07-12 22:16 +0000
                            Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-12 23:29 +0100
                              Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-07-12 23:27 +0000
                                Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-13 08:37 +0100
                                  Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-07-13 16:11 +0000
                                    Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Tom Blenko <blenko@martingalesystems.com> - 2026-07-13 16:30 -0700
                                      Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-07-14 04:09 +0000
                                    Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-14 23:43 +0000
                                      Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-07-15 03:10 +0000
                                        Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-15 12:17 +0100
                                  Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2026-07-13 23:34 +0100
                                    Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-14 08:36 +0100
                            Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-12 23:25 +0000
                              Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-07-12 23:30 +0000
                            Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-13 01:16 +0000
                              Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-07-13 04:16 +0000
                                Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-13 05:50 +0000
                          Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-12 23:22 +0000
                            Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-13 08:31 +0100
                    Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-12 09:07 +0100
                      Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-07-12 16:06 +0000
                Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-11 22:07 +0000
        resolved, sort of: Re: odd windowing issue (perl Tk) Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> - 2026-07-09 08:41 +0100

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#38222

On 12 Jul 2026 03:55:03 GMT, Robert Riches wrote:

> Okay, here's one niche use case:
>
>   - I want to run a shell script that opens four xterms (or
>     similar), and on the command line that starts each instance
>     the script specifies colors and screen size/position.

If you want total control over how things are laid out, put them all
in the same window. In this case, open the terminal sessions as panels
in a single window.

(Note that, in both X11 and Wayland, “window” is not synonymous with
“contiguous rectangular region of opaque pixels”.)

> Here's another:
>
>   - I want to monitor a group of maybe a dozen machines involved
>     in a performance benchmark, so I have a script that opens a
>     small monitoring application (maybe xload or "vmstat 3" or
>     similar) on various machines.  I would use the equivalent of
>     "ssh -X ..."  to launch them, since IIUC Wayland doesn't do
>     network transparency (defined as a client application
>     throwing its display to display server).

<https://packages.debian.org/trixie/waypipe>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38226

On 2026-07-12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On 12 Jul 2026 03:55:03 GMT, Robert Riches wrote:
>
>> Okay, here's one niche use case:
>>
>>   - I want to run a shell script that opens four xterms (or
>>     similar), and on the command line that starts each instance
>>     the script specifies colors and screen size/position.
>
> If you want total control over how things are laid out, put them all
> in the same window. In this case, open the terminal sessions as panels
> in a single window.

Perhaps you did not understand.  The xterms or whatever are the
applications.  I'm just want to use something like [-]-geometry
when launching instances of the applications so that they are
arranged how I (as the user) want them.

Or, perhaps you're just following the far-too-frequently observed
pattern of, "The Wayland way is the _ONLY_ way!"

> (Note that, in both X11 and Wayland, “window” is not synonymous with
> “contiguous rectangular region of opaque pixels”.)

Yes, there are a few things that create windows that are not
rectangular.

>> Here's another:
>>
>>   - I want to monitor a group of maybe a dozen machines involved
>>     in a performance benchmark, so I have a script that opens a
>>     small monitoring application (maybe xload or "vmstat 3" or
>>     similar) on various machines.  I would use the equivalent of
>>     "ssh -X ..."  to launch them, since IIUC Wayland doesn't do
>>     network transparency (defined as a client application
>>     throwing its display to display server).
>
><https://packages.debian.org/trixie/waypipe>

Nice that somebody finally came around to seeing that some form
of network transparency is needed.  However, the real beauty of
X's network transparency is not in 'ssh -X', it is in putting a
hostname or IP address in the value of $DISPLAY so that X clients
can access X display servers wherever they may be.

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38229

On 12 Jul 2026 16:14:28 GMT, Robert Riches wrote:

> Or, perhaps you're just following the far-too-frequently observed
> pattern of, "The Wayland way is the _ONLY_ way!"

I don’t see anybody offering a serious alternative. All I see is
people like you, complaining about things changing but not serious
about wanting to do something about it.

> However, the real beauty of X's network transparency is not in 'ssh
> -X', it is in putting a hostname or IP address in the value of
> $DISPLAY so that X clients can access X display servers wherever
> they may be.

X11 was never “network-transparent”. If the network connection went
down, all the remote X clients would die.

To achieve network-transparency, you had to resort to something like
VNC or RDP. And those sorts of protocols can work equally well with
Wayland.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38230

On 2026-07-12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On 12 Jul 2026 16:14:28 GMT, Robert Riches wrote:
>
>> Or, perhaps you're just following the far-too-frequently observed
>> pattern of, "The Wayland way is the _ONLY_ way!"
>
> I don’t see anybody offering a serious alternative. All I see is
> people like you, complaining about things changing but not serious
> about wanting to do something about it.

Why is there a need to do anything?  X works just fine.  What
happened to the motto of not fixing something if it's not broken?
Why is there such a mad rush to re-invent things but do so more
poorly than the original, working solution?

>> However, the real beauty of X's network transparency is not in 'ssh
>> -X', it is in putting a hostname or IP address in the value of
>> $DISPLAY so that X clients can access X display servers wherever
>> they may be.
>
> X11 was never “network-transparent”. If the network connection went
> down, all the remote X clients would die.
>
> To achieve network-transparency, you had to resort to something like
> VNC or RDP. And those sorts of protocols can work equally well with
> Wayland.

Wrong!  Without resorting to VNC, RDP, or anything similar, I
have personally launched X clients that displayed on a display
server on a different host.  All you have to do is use the proper
syntax to specify the remote display server in $DISPLAY or when
calling the library function to open the display, set XHost
appropriately, and supply the XAUTH key/cookie/whatever.

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38231

Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> writes:
> On 2026-07-12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> On 12 Jul 2026 16:14:28 GMT, Robert Riches wrote:
>>> Or, perhaps you're just following the far-too-frequently observed
>>> pattern of, "The Wayland way is the _ONLY_ way!"
>>
>> I don’t see anybody offering a serious alternative. All I see is
>> people like you, complaining about things changing but not serious
>> about wanting to do something about it.
>
> Why is there a need to do anything?  X works just fine.  What
> happened to the motto of not fixing something if it's not broken?
> Why is there such a mad rush to re-invent things but do so more
> poorly than the original, working solution?

‘Why’ is covered in the FAQ.

https://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html

>>> However, the real beauty of X's network transparency is not in 'ssh
>>> -X', it is in putting a hostname or IP address in the value of
>>> $DISPLAY so that X clients can access X display servers wherever
>>> they may be.

That has very limited usefulness today due to its unacceptably poor
security.

>> X11 was never “network-transparent”. If the network connection went
>> down, all the remote X clients would die.
>>
>> To achieve network-transparency, you had to resort to something like
>> VNC or RDP. And those sorts of protocols can work equally well with
>> Wayland.
>
> Wrong!  Without resorting to VNC, RDP, or anything similar, I
> have personally launched X clients that displayed on a display
> server on a different host.  All you have to do is use the proper
> syntax to specify the remote display server in $DISPLAY or when
> calling the library function to open the display, set XHost
> appropriately, and supply the XAUTH key/cookie/whatever.

Lawrence is right that your clients die if the network goes down
(e.g. if the client endpoint sleeps, which is the usual reason my remote
X clients fail).

Whether that’s the definition of ‘network transaprent’ I’ll not take a
view on. But it’s certainly inconvenient.

-- 
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38234

On 2026-07-12, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> writes:
>> On 2026-07-12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 12 Jul 2026 16:14:28 GMT, Robert Riches wrote:
>>>> Or, perhaps you're just following the far-too-frequently observed
>>>> pattern of, "The Wayland way is the _ONLY_ way!"
>>>
>>> I don’t see anybody offering a serious alternative. All I see is
>>> people like you, complaining about things changing but not serious
>>> about wanting to do something about it.
>>
>> Why is there a need to do anything?  X works just fine.  What
>> happened to the motto of not fixing something if it's not broken?
>> Why is there such a mad rush to re-invent things but do so more
>> poorly than the original, working solution?
>
> ‘Why’ is covered in the FAQ.
>
> https://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html

Yes, and those who have chosen to pathetically re-implement ntpd
for systemd (throwing out everything that makes ntpd a superior
solution) have similar justifications for their needless efforts.

There's a quote, something to the effect that those who do not
understand Unix will be condemned to re-implement it--poorly.
The same seems appropriate when describing systemd's poor
imitation of ntpd and Wayland.

>>>> However, the real beauty of X's network transparency is not in 'ssh
>>>> -X', it is in putting a hostname or IP address in the value of
>>>> $DISPLAY so that X clients can access X display servers wherever
>>>> they may be.
>
> That has very limited usefulness today due to its unacceptably poor
> security.

Yes, but in those cases where it is useful (far inside more than
a few levels of security fencing and such), it's still useful and
consumes a lot less resources than ssh -X.

>>> X11 was never “network-transparent”. If the network connection went
>>> down, all the remote X clients would die.
>>>
>>> To achieve network-transparency, you had to resort to something like
>>> VNC or RDP. And those sorts of protocols can work equally well with
>>> Wayland.
>>
>> Wrong!  Without resorting to VNC, RDP, or anything similar, I
>> have personally launched X clients that displayed on a display
>> server on a different host.  All you have to do is use the proper
>> syntax to specify the remote display server in $DISPLAY or when
>> calling the library function to open the display, set XHost
>> appropriately, and supply the XAUTH key/cookie/whatever.
>
> Lawrence is right that your clients die if the network goes down
> (e.g. if the client endpoint sleeps, which is the usual reason my remote
> X clients fail).

The first part about clients dying if the network connection goes
down is so obviously trivial that it doesn't deserve comment.  I
think that gimmick might be called a red herring.

Where Lawrence is wrong is that X does not require ssh -X, VNC,
RDP, or anything similar to do X displaying across a network.
That is what is normally meant by X's network transparency.

> Whether that’s the definition of ‘network transaprent’ I’ll not take a
> view on. But it’s certainly inconvenient.

Not sure what you mean is inconvenient.

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38241

Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> writes:
> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> writes:
>>> Why is there a need to do anything?  X works just fine.  What
>>> happened to the motto of not fixing something if it's not broken?
>>> Why is there such a mad rush to re-invent things but do so more
>>> poorly than the original, working solution?
>>
>> ‘Why’ is covered in the FAQ.
>>
>> https://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html
>
> Yes, and those who have chosen to pathetically re-implement ntpd
> for systemd (throwing out everything that makes ntpd a superior
> solution) have similar justifications for their needless efforts.
>
> There's a quote, something to the effect that those who do not
> understand Unix will be condemned to re-implement it--poorly.
> The same seems appropriate when describing systemd's poor
> imitation of ntpd and Wayland.

Wayland was largely created by X11 developers. They know a lot more
about it than you.

>>>>> However, the real beauty of X's network transparency is not in 'ssh
>>>>> -X', it is in putting a hostname or IP address in the value of
>>>>> $DISPLAY so that X clients can access X display servers wherever
>>>>> they may be.
>>
>> That has very limited usefulness today due to its unacceptably poor
>> security.
>
> Yes, but in those cases where it is useful (far inside more than
> a few levels of security fencing and such), it's still useful and
> consumes a lot less resources than ssh -X.

SSH is the ‘security fencing’, and consumes almost no resources on
modern hardware (meaning last 20 years or so).

>> Lawrence is right that your clients die if the network goes down
>> (e.g. if the client endpoint sleeps, which is the usual reason my remote
>> X clients fail).
>
> The first part about clients dying if the network connection goes
> down is so obviously trivial that it doesn't deserve comment.  I
> think that gimmick might be called a red herring.
>
> Where Lawrence is wrong is that X does not require ssh -X, VNC,
> RDP, or anything similar to do X displaying across a network.
> That is what is normally meant by X's network transparency.
>
>> Whether that’s the definition of ‘network transaprent’ I’ll not take a
>> view on. But it’s certainly inconvenient.
>
> Not sure what you mean is inconvenient.

It was literally in the previous paragraph:

| Lawrence is right that your clients die if the network goes down
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| (e.g. if the client endpoint sleeps, which is the usual reason my remote
| X clients fail).
| 
| Whether that’s the definition of ‘network transaprent’ I’ll not take a
| view on. But it’s certainly inconvenient.

-- 
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38243

On 2026-07-13, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> writes:
>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> writes:
>>>> Why is there a need to do anything?  X works just fine.  What
>>>> happened to the motto of not fixing something if it's not broken?
>>>> Why is there such a mad rush to re-invent things but do so more
>>>> poorly than the original, working solution?
>>>
>>> ‘Why’ is covered in the FAQ.
>>>
>>> https://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html
>>
>> Yes, and those who have chosen to pathetically re-implement ntpd
>> for systemd (throwing out everything that makes ntpd a superior
>> solution) have similar justifications for their needless efforts.
>>
>> There's a quote, something to the effect that those who do not
>> understand Unix will be condemned to re-implement it--poorly.
>> The same seems appropriate when describing systemd's poor
>> imitation of ntpd and Wayland.
>
> Wayland was largely created by X11 developers. They know a lot more
> about it than you.

Ahhh, yes...  The "My dad is smarter than your dad" card was very
popular on the grade-school playground.

Without an equivalent or replacement for the [-]-geometry option
when starting a simple (rectangular) client, a graphical
windowing system is nearly as useless as Mickey$oft WinDoze.
Being able to do the equivalent of "xterm -geometry
48x16+100+200" or "mplayer -geometry 720x480+200+300" is
essential functionality.

Parsimony is generally a good thing, but it be overdone to the
point of impracticality.  Software engineering academics will
preach parsimony as an absolute goal.  However, the benefits of
parsimony need to be balanced against practical considerations in
order to achieve useful results.

An analogous thing happens in SQL database design.  Academics
preach normalization at an absolute goal.  However, with a
sufficiently complex system, full normalization can require each
query to use an excessive number of joins, and that can adversely
affect performance.  Those with practical experience in DB design
will concede that sometimes you need to denormalize slightly in
order to get reasonable performance.

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38245

In article <slrn115a3i3.ki8.spamtrap42@one.localnet>, Robert Riches
<spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> wrote:

> An analogous thing happens in SQL database design.  Academics
> preach normalization at an absolute goal.  However, with a
> sufficiently complex system, full normalization can require each
> query to use an excessive number of joins, and that can adversely
> affect performance.  Those with practical experience in DB design
> will concede that sometimes you need to denormalize slightly in
> order to get reasonable performance.

This is nonsense and a good hint is that you are putting words in the
mouths of others and then attacking them for those words.

I've never taken a database course but I had nearly 20 years of
database design in industry for mid-level systems. I have read some
database books written by academics along the way. The claim that they
"preach normalization at (sic) an absolute goal" is plain wrong in my
experience.

The academic books I've read describe multiple normal forms. I don't
recall ever seeing one singled as superior to all the others, different
normal forms reflect different (generally theoretical) perspectives on
data and the relational calculus. Not surprising, I think, and I am
confident that being informed about different perspectives has helped
me design systems.

Database design requires a designer to balance various factors,
including where the data comes from, how it is to be maintained, and
how it is to be used (including performance of queries). I have no idea
which of all the tables I've designed and run in production may or may
not be normalized by any of the multiple normalizations that have been
described. But I read those books in order to improve my skills and it
was time well spent.

   Tom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38246

On 2026-07-13, Tom Blenko <blenko@martingalesystems.com> wrote:
> In article <slrn115a3i3.ki8.spamtrap42@one.localnet>, Robert Riches
><spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> wrote:
>
>> An analogous thing happens in SQL database design.  Academics
>> preach normalization at an absolute goal.  However, with a
>> sufficiently complex system, full normalization can require each
>> query to use an excessive number of joins, and that can adversely
>> affect performance.  Those with practical experience in DB design
>> will concede that sometimes you need to denormalize slightly in
>> order to get reasonable performance.
>
> This is nonsense and a good hint is that you are putting words in the
> mouths of others and then attacking them for those words.
>
> I've never taken a database course but I had nearly 20 years of
> database design in industry for mid-level systems. I have read some
> database books written by academics along the way. The claim that they
> "preach normalization at (sic) an absolute goal" is plain wrong in my
> experience.

Yes, you caught my typo.

It appears your experience differs from mine.  Evidently, the
academics who wrote the books you read had a different take from
the professors who taught my DB courses at Oregon Graduate
Institute in 2001 and those who wrote the articles I studied with
colleagues around 2024-2025.  I'm glad you had the good fortune
in your study and practical experience to see and adopt a more
balanced approach.

> The academic books I've read describe multiple normal forms. I don't
> recall ever seeing one singled as superior to all the others, different
> normal forms reflect different (generally theoretical) perspectives on
> data and the relational calculus. Not surprising, I think, and I am
> confident that being informed about different perspectives has helped
> me design systems.
>
> Database design requires a designer to balance various factors,
> including where the data comes from, how it is to be maintained, and
> how it is to be used (including performance of queries). I have no idea
> which of all the tables I've designed and run in production may or may
> not be normalized by any of the multiple normalizations that have been
> described. But I read those books in order to improve my skills and it
> was time well spent.
>
>    Tom

Thank you for describing your experience and perspective.

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38248

On 13 Jul 2026 16:11:47 GMT, Robert Riches wrote:

> An analogous thing happens in SQL database design.

It does seem like you are trying to distract attention from the
X11-versus-Wayland discussion. Your argument there is collapsing, so
you try to pull the old smokescreen switcharoo: “Never mind that, look
over here!”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38249

On 2026-07-14, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On 13 Jul 2026 16:11:47 GMT, Robert Riches wrote:
>
>> An analogous thing happens in SQL database design.
>
> It does seem like you are trying to distract attention from the
> X11-versus-Wayland discussion. Your argument there is collapsing, so
> you try to pull the old smokescreen switcharoo: “Never mind that, look
> over here!”

Collapsing?  No, with the lack of mention of any sort of
replacement for the essential [-]-geometry option to launch
simple clients (xterm, mplayer, for example), it's the
pro-Wayland argument that has collapsed.

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38250

On 15/07/2026 04:10, Robert Riches wrote:
> On 2026-07-14, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> On 13 Jul 2026 16:11:47 GMT, Robert Riches wrote:
>>
>>> An analogous thing happens in SQL database design.
>>
>> It does seem like you are trying to distract attention from the
>> X11-versus-Wayland discussion. Your argument there is collapsing, so
>> you try to pull the old smokescreen switcharoo: “Never mind that, look
>> over here!”
> 
> Collapsing?  No, with the lack of mention of any sort of
> replacement for the essential [-]-geometry option to launch
> simple clients (xterm, mplayer, for example), it's the
> pro-Wayland argument that has collapsed.
> 

I am reminds me of a friend who said 'you can't program in C on an Apple 
II' and I said 'why?'  and he said 'there is no key for {or }'!

IIRC there was no lower case either.

-- 
The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before 
its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about.

Anon.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38244

On 13/07/2026 08:37, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> Wayland was largely created by X11 developers. They know a lot more
> about it than you.

Richard, that's a strange hill to die on.

---druck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38247

druck <news@druck.org.uk> writes:
> Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> Wayland was largely created by X11 developers. They know a lot more
>> about it than you.
>
> Richard, that's a strange hill to die on.

The context was Robert attacking the Wayland developers, from a position
of evident ignorance, via Henry Spencer’s remark “Those who do not
understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly”. But the quote
does not fit, indeed it is almost the opposite of a fit: the reality is
that the Wayland developers do understand X11, more so than most, and
that is why they decided to go in a different direction.

-- 
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38233

On 12 Jul 2026 22:16:40 GMT, Robert Riches wrote:

>  All you have to do is use the proper syntax to specify
> the remote display server in $DISPLAY or when calling the library
> function to open the display, set XHost appropriately, and supply the
> XAUTH key/cookie/whatever.

We tended to set 'xhost +'.  'Why is it suddenly snowing on my computer?'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38235

On 2026-07-12, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On 12 Jul 2026 22:16:40 GMT, Robert Riches wrote:
>
>>  All you have to do is use the proper syntax to specify
>> the remote display server in $DISPLAY or when calling the library
>> function to open the display, set XHost appropriately, and supply the
>> XAUTH key/cookie/whatever.
>
> We tended to set 'xhost +'.  'Why is it suddenly snowing on my computer?'

That's where the "appropriately" part comes in.  If there aren't
enough layers of security fencing between what you're doing and
either pranksters or bad guys, you want to be more selective.

I would agree that in _MOST_ cases, ssh -X is probably preferable
in today's environment.

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38236

On 12 Jul 2026 22:16:40 GMT, Robert Riches wrote:

> On 2026-07-12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 12 Jul 2026 16:14:28 GMT, Robert Riches wrote:
>>
>>> Or, perhaps you're just following the far-too-frequently observed
>>> pattern of, "The Wayland way is the _ONLY_ way!"
>>
>> I don’t see anybody offering a serious alternative. All I see is
>> people like you, complaining about things changing but not serious
>> about wanting to do something about it.
>
> Why is there a need to do anything?  X works just fine.

Developers have largely ceased updating it, because hardly anybody
sees it as a worthwhile project any more. If you don’t care about
that, fine. But most of those responsible for maintaining
well-supported distros do.

> Without resorting to VNC, RDP, or anything similar, I have
> personally launched X clients that displayed on a display server on
> a different host. All you have to do is use the proper syntax to
> specify the remote display server in $DISPLAY or when calling the
> library function to open the display, set XHost appropriately, and
> supply the XAUTH key/cookie/whatever.

X11 was never “network-transparent”. If the network connection went
down, all those remote X clients would die.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38237

On 2026-07-13, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On 12 Jul 2026 22:16:40 GMT, Robert Riches wrote:
>
>> On 2026-07-12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12 Jul 2026 16:14:28 GMT, Robert Riches wrote:
>>>
>>>> Or, perhaps you're just following the far-too-frequently observed
>>>> pattern of, "The Wayland way is the _ONLY_ way!"
>>>
>>> I don’t see anybody offering a serious alternative. All I see is
>>> people like you, complaining about things changing but not serious
>>> about wanting to do something about it.
>>
>> Why is there a need to do anything?  X works just fine.
>
> Developers have largely ceased updating it, because hardly anybody
> sees it as a worthwhile project any more. If you don’t care about
> that, fine. But most of those responsible for maintaining
> well-supported distros do.
>
>> Without resorting to VNC, RDP, or anything similar, I have
>> personally launched X clients that displayed on a display server on
>> a different host. All you have to do is use the proper syntax to
>> specify the remote display server in $DISPLAY or when calling the
>> library function to open the display, set XHost appropriately, and
>> supply the XAUTH key/cookie/whatever.
>
> X11 was never “network-transparent”. If the network connection went
> down, all those remote X clients would die.

That's not what the term means, and as someone else already
pointed out, VNC and RDP and anything else would soon follow.  To
help you correct your misunderstanding of the terminology:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System_protocols_and_architecture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_transparency

On the former page, please notice the first line and other
supporting statements later in the page.

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38238

On 13 Jul 2026 04:16:39 GMT, Robert Riches wrote:

> On 2026-07-13, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> X11 was never “network-transparent”. If the network connection went
>> down, all those remote X clients would die.
>
> That's not what the term means ...

Doesn’t matter what you think it means. That’s what happens,
regardless.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.raspberry-pi

csiph-web