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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #246091 > unrolled thread

Wayland vs X

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Wayland vs X Kevin Exton <kcexton01@gmail.com> - 2022-03-08 23:20 +0100
    Re: Wayland vs X Georgi Naplatanov <gosho@oles.biz> - 2022-03-09 11:00 +0100
      Re: Wayland vs X Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> - 2022-03-09 11:20 +0100
        Re: Wayland vs X didier gaumet <didier.gaumet@gmail.com> - 2022-03-09 15:00 +0100
          Re: Wayland vs X Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> - 2022-03-09 16:30 +0100
            Re: Wayland vs X didier gaumet <didier.gaumet@gmail.com> - 2022-03-09 21:30 +0100
              Re: Wayland vs X Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> - 2022-03-10 16:30 +0100
                Re: Wayland vs X didier gaumet <didier.gaumet@gmail.com> - 2022-03-10 18:30 +0100
                  Re: Wayland vs X Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> - 2022-03-10 19:10 +0100
                    Re: Wayland vs X didier gaumet <didier.gaumet@gmail.com> - 2022-03-10 21:30 +0100
                      Re: Wayland vs X Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> - 2022-03-11 00:10 +0100
                        Re: Wayland vs X Nate Bargmann <n0nb@n0nb.us> - 2022-03-11 13:10 +0100
                          Re: Wayland vs X Christian Britz <cbritz@t-online.de> - 2022-03-11 14:20 +0100
                            Re: Wayland vs X Nate Bargmann <n0nb@n0nb.us> - 2022-03-11 15:10 +0100
                              Re: Wayland vs X didier gaumet <didier.gaumet@gmail.com> - 2022-03-11 17:40 +0100
                              Re: Wayland vs X Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> - 2022-03-11 21:10 +0100
                                Re: Wayland vs X Nate Bargmann <n0nb@n0nb.us> - 2022-03-11 23:10 +0100
                                  Re: Wayland vs X Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> - 2022-03-12 01:10 +0100
                            Re: Wayland vs X Marco Möller <talby@debianlists.mobilxpress.net> - 2022-03-11 19:30 +0100
                              Re: Wayland vs X Tim Woodall <debianuser@woodall.me.uk> - 2022-03-11 20:30 +0100
                              Re: Wayland vs X Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2022-03-11 22:10 +0100
                                Re: Wayland vs X Nate Bargmann <n0nb@n0nb.us> - 2022-03-11 23:20 +0100
                                Re: Wayland vs X <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2022-03-12 07:40 +0100
                                Re: Wayland vs X Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2022-03-14 16:30 +0100
                                  Re: Wayland vs X Marco Möller <talby@debianlists.mobilxpress.net> - 2022-03-14 17:50 +0100
                                    Re: Wayland vs X Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2022-03-14 18:30 +0100
                                      Re: Wayland vs X Marco Möller <talby@debianlists.mobilxpress.net> - 2022-03-14 20:30 +0100
                                        Re: Wayland vs X Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2022-03-14 21:10 +0100
                          Re: Wayland vs X Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> - 2022-03-11 21:20 +0100
                            Re: Wayland vs X Nate Bargmann <n0nb@n0nb.us> - 2022-03-11 23:10 +0100
                          Re: Wayland vs X The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2022-03-11 21:50 +0100
                            Re: Wayland vs X Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> - 2022-03-11 22:10 +0100
                              Re: Wayland vs X Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> - 2022-03-11 22:30 +0100
                                Re: Wayland vs X Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2022-03-11 22:40 +0100
                                  Re: Wayland vs X 황병희 <soyeomul@doraji.xyz> - 2022-03-16 07:20 +0100
                              Re: Wayland vs X Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2022-03-11 22:30 +0100
                                Re: Wayland vs X conover@panix.com (John Conover) - 2022-03-11 23:00 +0100
                              Re: Wayland vs X The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2022-03-11 22:40 +0100
                                Re: Wayland vs X Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> - 2022-03-11 23:00 +0100
                                  Re: Wayland vs X The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2022-03-11 23:00 +0100
                                    Re: Wayland vs X Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> - 2022-03-11 23:10 +0100
                            Re: Wayland vs X <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2022-03-12 07:30 +0100
                              Re: Wayland vs X The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2022-03-12 13:30 +0100
                                Re: Wayland vs X <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2022-03-12 13:40 +0100
                                  Re: Wayland vs X Nate Bargmann <n0nb@n0nb.us> - 2022-03-12 15:00 +0100
                                    Re: Wayland vs X <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2022-03-12 15:10 +0100
                                  Re: Wayland vs X The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2022-03-13 00:40 +0100
                              Re: Wayland vs X Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2022-03-12 21:10 +0100
                                Re: Wayland vs X <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2022-03-12 22:00 +0100
                Re: Wayland vs X didier gaumet <didier.gaumet@gmail.com> - 2022-03-10 18:30 +0100
      Re: Wayland vs X Pascal Obry <pascal@obry.net> - 2022-03-09 11:40 +0100
        Re: Wayland vs X Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> - 2022-03-09 11:50 +0100
    Re: Wayland vs X Christian Britz <cbritz@t-online.de> - 2022-03-09 11:50 +0100
      Re: Wayland vs X Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> - 2022-03-09 12:00 +0100
      Re: Wayland vs X Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2022-03-09 18:20 +0100
        Re: Wayland vs X <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2022-03-09 18:50 +0100
          Re: Wayland vs X Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2022-03-09 20:00 +0100
            Re: Wayland vs X <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2022-03-09 20:40 +0100
              Re: Wayland vs X Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> - 2022-03-09 20:50 +0100
                Re: Wayland vs X <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2022-03-09 21:30 +0100
                  Re: Wayland vs X gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2022-03-09 21:40 +0100
                    Re: Wayland vs X <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2022-03-09 22:00 +0100
        Re: Wayland vs X Christian Britz <cbritz@t-online.de> - 2022-03-09 21:20 +0100
    Re: Wayland vs X 황병희 <soyeomul@doraji.xyz> - 2022-03-16 07:00 +0100
      Re: Wayland vs X Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> - 2022-03-16 08:00 +0100
        Re: Wayland vs X Nate Bargmann <n0nb@n0nb.us> - 2022-03-16 08:20 +0100
          Re: Wayland vs X Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> - 2022-03-16 08:30 +0100
        Re: Wayland vs X "Byung-Hee HWANG" <soyeomul@doraji.xyz> - 2022-03-16 08:40 +0100
        Re: Wayland vs X Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2022-03-16 12:40 +0100
          Re: Wayland vs X Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> - 2022-03-16 13:10 +0100
            Re: Wayland vs X Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> - 2022-03-16 13:20 +0100
              Re: Wayland vs X Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> - 2022-03-16 13:40 +0100

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#246213

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022, 12:25 PM Marco Möller <
talby@debianlists.mobilxpress.net> wrote:

> On 11.03.22 14:14, Christian Britz wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2022-03-11 12:47 UTC+0100, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> >
> >> I have used Gnome on Wayland since late 2018.  It improved a lot with
> >> the release of Bullseye.  I use this setup on two machines, a laptop and
> >> a desktop that has two monitors.  So far I have not had any issues with
> >
> > And what is the practical _advantage_ over a X11 setup?
> >
> > The question is serious. Everytime I tried Wayland, something was not
> > working as expected, uncomfortable to use and so on. Yes, Wayland
> > support has improved a lot, but I still do not really see what I miss
> > because I stick to X11. I know that Wayland has a cleaner design, but
> > that bothers me not too much as a user.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Christian
> >
>
> Isn't it all about X by design to not be able to safely protect a
> running X applications to snoop on other running X applications,
> something like the content of a window cannot safely kept private? I
> remember to have read that Wayland was invented for this reason, to
> overcome these security flaws of X which in the beginning of X have not
> been a concern to anyone, but nowadays security issues are of much
> importance to almost everyone.
> (I have no reference for this statement, just remember to have something
> like this read in the past)
>

That was exactly what I asked here a few days ago. And I was told that I
was incorrect, that Wayland was simply a better implementation of X. That
the old implementation X.org was still under active development. Showing
that I was mistaken.

But if you read stuff online on this subject, you read exactly what I
wrote: that the X protocol is old and outdated, the X source is largely
unused at runtime, no real mindshare for X.org among X developers.

Here's an example of these views from 2021, at linuxiac.org:
"Most of the features that the X Server protocol provided were not used
anymore. Pretty much all of the work that X11 did was redelegated to the
individual applications and the window manager. And yet all of those old
features are still there, weighing down on all of these applications,
hurting performance and security".
https://linuxiac.com/xorg-x11-wayland-linux-display-servers-and-protocols-explained/

I'm just trying to find out what the real story is.


And isn't it because of Wayland protecting windows by design against
> other windows, that operations like Copy&Paste between GUI applications
> are (still) not always running smoothly and need extra efforts to become
> well implemented?
> (Again, I have no reference for this statement, just remember to have
> something like this read in the past)
>
> Regards,
> Marco
>
>

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

#246224

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

* On 2022 11 Mar 15:10 -0600, Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
> That was exactly what I asked here a few days ago. And I was told that I
> was incorrect, that Wayland was simply a better implementation of X. That
> the old implementation X.org was still under active development. Showing
> that I was mistaken.
> 
> But if you read stuff online on this subject, you read exactly what I
> wrote: that the X protocol is old and outdated, the X source is largely
> unused at runtime, no real mindshare for X.org among X developers.
> 
> Here's an example of these views from 2021, at linuxiac.org:
> "Most of the features that the X Server protocol provided were not used
> anymore. Pretty much all of the work that X11 did was redelegated to the
> individual applications and the window manager. And yet all of those old
> features are still there, weighing down on all of these applications,
> hurting performance and security".
> https://linuxiac.com/xorg-x11-wayland-linux-display-servers-and-protocols-explained/
> 
> I'm just trying to find out what the real story is.

Keith Packard, a long time X developer, gave a talk at Linux Conf.au[1]
in early 2020 about X history and politics[2].  As I recall (it's been
two years since I watched it), much of what you wrote above echos
Keith's comments.

- Nate

[1] https://www.keithp.com/blogs/tags/lca/
[2] https://youtu.be/cj02_UeUnGQ

-- 
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."
Web: https://www.n0nb.us
Projects: https://github.com/N0NB
GPG fingerprint: 82D6 4F6B 0E67 CD41 F689 BBA6 FB2C 5130 D55A 8819

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

#246232

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 03:09:08PM -0600, Nicholas Geovanis wrote:

[...]

> > Isn't it all about X by design to not be able to safely protect a
> > running X applications to snoop on other running X applications,
> > something like the content of a window cannot safely kept private? I
> > remember to have read that Wayland was invented for this reason, to
> > overcome these security flaws of X which in the beginning of X have not
> > been a concern to anyone, but nowadays security issues are of much
> > importance to almost everyone.
> > (I have no reference for this statement, just remember to have something
> > like this read in the past)
> >
> 
> That was exactly what I asked here a few days ago. And I was told that I
> was incorrect, that Wayland was simply a better implementation of X. That
> the old implementation X.org was still under active development. Showing
> that I was mistaken.

They only removed the stuff me and you don't need. Promised ;-)

Cheers
-- 
t

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

#246299

Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> writes:

>  Isn't it all about X by design to not be able to safely protect a 
>  running X applications to snoop on other running X applications, 
>  something like the content of a window cannot safely kept private?

Well, what about something basic like allowing only specific apps to
read the clipboard? Or maybe just the app that has focus, sort of like
Android does it.

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

#246300

On 14.03.22 16:23, Anssi Saari wrote:
> Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>>   Isn't it all about X by design to not be able to safely protect a
>>   running X applications to snoop on other running X applications,
>>   something like the content of a window cannot safely kept private?
> 
> Well, what about something basic like allowing only specific apps to
> read the clipboard? Or maybe just the app that has focus, sort of like
> Android does it.

I am not sure if I understood your answer. Is it a suggestion of what 
should be of importance, or is it the confirmation that Wayland is 
capable to configure clipboard access restrictive like this?

Regards, Marco!

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

#246301

Marco Möller <talby@debianlists.mobilxpress.net> writes:

> I am not sure if I understood your answer. Is it a suggestion of what
> should be of importance, or is it the confirmation that Wayland is
> capable to configure clipboard access restrictive like this?

Um, I thought a question mark is a fairly common indication of a
question? I asked a question.

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

#246304

On 14.03.22 18:28, Anssi Saari wrote:
> Marco Möller <talby@debianlists.mobilxpress.net> writes:
> 
>> I am not sure if I understood your answer. Is it a suggestion of what
>> should be of importance, or is it the confirmation that Wayland is
>> capable to configure clipboard access restrictive like this?
> 
> Um, I thought a question mark is a fairly common indication of a
> question? I asked a question.

Ah, now I understood. Well, then I try to answer to my best knowledge 
assuming that my knowledge is not outdated. I am not a developer and 
only repeat what I found stated by others, again not having a reference 
but am citing from memory:


On 14.03.22 16:23, Anssi Saari wrote:
 > Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> writes:
 >
 >>   Isn't it all about X by design to not be able to safely protect a
 >>   running X applications to snoop on other running X applications,
 >>   something like the content of a window cannot safely kept private?
 >
 > Well, what about something basic like allowing only specific apps to
 > read the clipboard? Or maybe just the app that has focus, sort of like
 > Android does it.


Wayland does not provide clipboard access restrictions out of the box. 
But Wayland, other than X, makes it possible that restrictions like this 
could be implemented!

The implementation would have to take place at the level of the 
compositor, which is kind of the equivalent of the X Server. As there 
could be developed quite different compositors for Wayland, it thus will 
depend on the particular compositor in use, if and which security rules 
are finally available. In some more or less popular library, making 
available to developers of compositors some basic functionality, it is 
implemented the restriction, that only an app in the foreground can 
write to the clipboard, and only an app in the foreground can read from 
it. This should help that a third party hidden in the background can not 
interfere with the clipboard while the users copies something from app A 
to app B by switching between exactly these two apps.

Better than nothing! But this library has not implemented further 
treatment of the clipboard following further rules. For instance it 
would depend on an app, if it removes the content from the clipboard 
after having received it. Thus, if the user doesn't delete the clipboard 
right away, then a formerly hidden app C becoming a foreground app could 
read it. And alike, if the user would not switch directly from A to B, 
but my mistake brings to the foreground app C before having pasted to 
app B and deleted the clipboard content, then app C could have 
overwritten the clipboard without the user having noticed it.

Now, which compositor is using this library with at least this 
foreground-app-only access rule being implemented, and which compositor 
is using a different implementation, and how do the individual apps 
finally make use of their right to read/write the clipboard when in the 
foreground? This are many unanswered questions.

There is certainly a need of improvement. But at least, if someone would 
like to contribute more sophisticated access control functionality, 
then, other than X, this, as far as I remember, would be possible in 
Wayland.

Regards, Marco.

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

#246305

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Mar 14, 2022, 2:21 PM Marco Möller <
talby@debianlists.mobilxpress.net> wrote:

> On 14.03.22 18:28, Anssi Saari wrote:
> > Marco Möller <talby@debianlists.mobilxpress.net> writes:
> >
> >> I am not sure if I understood your answer. Is it a suggestion of what
> >> should be of importance, or is it the confirmation that Wayland is
> >> capable to configure clipboard access restrictive like this?
> >
> > Um, I thought a question mark is a fairly common indication of a
> > question? I asked a question.
>
> Ah, now I understood. Well, then I try to answer to my best knowledge
> assuming that my knowledge is not outdated. I am not a developer and
> only repeat what I found stated by others, again not having a reference
> but am citing from memory:
>
>
> On 14.03.22 16:23, Anssi Saari wrote:
>  > Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> writes:
>  >
>  >>   Isn't it all about X by design to not be able to safely protect a
>  >>   running X applications to snoop on other running X applications,
>  >>   something like the content of a window cannot safely kept private?
>  >
>  > Well, what about something basic like allowing only specific apps to
>  > read the clipboard? Or maybe just the app that has focus, sort of like
>  > Android does it.
>
>
> Wayland does not provide clipboard access restrictions out of the box.
> But Wayland, other than X, makes it possible that restrictions like this
> could be implemented!
>

I'm being misquoted, it wasn't actually me :-) Not a big deal.

As Marco points out, there is no reason that actions at the window level
could not be individually restricted. Modified windowing systems were doing
that in secure computing in the early 1990s at least. Even restricted at
the level of granularity of SElinux-style Mandatory Access Control.

My comment is that one of the strengths of X Windows was the view of the
graphics workstation as the server, but each application a client somewhere
on the network, maybe local to the X server also. Diskless X workstations
then implemented X servers partially in firmware (sometimes), tossing away
local execution. No problem, in my experience.

But has Wayland tossed out the functional  separation between the X server
hardware (in your box) and the OS? So that it can be closer to the graphics
card? XFree86 did that if I'm not mistaken. Is that still necessary for
performance or graphics compatibility reasons?

The implementation would have to take place at the level of the
> compositor, which is kind of the equivalent of the X Server.


Brilliant. Exactly my point.

As there
> could be developed quite different compositors for Wayland, it thus will
> ....
>
> Regards, Marco.
>

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

#246210

Nate Bargmann wrote:

>> No, I understood, but that sounds like too much emulator ...
>
> My understanding is that xwayland is an X server that runs
> under Wayland and the idea is that it handles X protocols
> but Wayland handles the video drivers and screen drawing.
>
> I have used Gnome on Wayland since late 2018. It improved
> a lot with the release of Bullseye.

Okay, I'm on Bullseye as well.

You have commands so I can try?

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

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

#246223

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

* On 2022 11 Mar 14:10 -0600, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Nate Bargmann wrote:
> 
> >> No, I understood, but that sounds like too much emulator ...
> >
> > My understanding is that xwayland is an X server that runs
> > under Wayland and the idea is that it handles X protocols
> > but Wayland handles the video drivers and screen drawing.
> >
> > I have used Gnome on Wayland since late 2018. It improved
> > a lot with the release of Bullseye.
> 
> Okay, I'm on Bullseye as well.
> 
> You have commands so I can try?

I had just installed the system with the preselected Gnome desktop task
and everything was put in place.  I simply log into the Gnome desktop
from GDM.

- Nate

-- 
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."
Web: https://www.n0nb.us
Projects: https://github.com/N0NB
GPG fingerprint: 82D6 4F6B 0E67 CD41 F689 BBA6 FB2C 5130 D55A 8819

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

#246211

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2022-03-11 at 06:47, Nate Bargmann wrote:

> * On 2022 10 Mar 17:04 -0600, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> 
>> didier gaumet wrote:
>> 
>>>> OK, thanks, I won't switch then I think ... I like feh and use
>>>> it a lot.
>>> 
>>> Just to be clear in case there would be a misunderstanding 
>>> because my sentence was not accurate enough: what I meant is feh
>>> (for example) is not directly compatible with Wayland, but can be
>>> run in the X11 compatibility layer of Wayland (Xwayland, the
>>> nested X server that can be run inside Wayland)
>> 
>> No, I understood, but that sounds like too much emulator ...
> 
> My understanding is that xwayland is an X server that runs under 
> Wayland and the idea is that it handles X protocols but Wayland
> handles the video drivers and screen drawing.

That's a rough match for my own understanding, with the added
qualification that apparently there are some features of the X protocol
which Wayland doesn't support, and which XWayland therefore may well
also not (be able to) support. (Although, while writing this mail, I've
seen assertions that the XWayland codebase *is* the X.org codebase, just
with the hardware-related parts stripped out and replaced with calls to
Wayland - in which case maybe those features would be working after all.)


The most important one for my purposes, and therefore the one that I
remember, is the ability to have multiple desktop-like things which are
actually all just viewports on one much-larger single area. The big
advantage of this is that it lets you have a window that's larger than
any one single desktop, and switch around between desktops to look at
different parts of that window. One of my brothers and I have both made
productive use of this feature (for values of "productive" that relate
to games and entertainment, anyway), and would not be happy to lose
access to it.

(Possible FUD alert; I don't have any citations for the next paragraph,
although I trust the person from whom I learned of it.)

I remember having been informed that people had brought this up with the
Wayland developers, and that the upshot of the ensuing conversation was
that those developers considered this feature to be an odd historical
wart on the X specification, clearly of no value, and not worth
supporting or implementing - and because they considered it so, Wayland
had been designed in a way that made it difficult or impossible to
implement that feature, even with people now requesting it.


Another limitation of XWayland as I've heard it described (by the same
person on whose statements the previous paragraph is based, as well as
in online discussions related to XWeston, below), as compared to a full
X server: where you can (and, in fact, usually need to) run a window
manager on top of an X server, I'm given to understand that you cannot
run a window manager on top of XWayland. Instead, the window manager
needs to be implemented as a Wayland compositor, and you then run
XWayland inside of that. (I have not actually tried to do this myself,
for reasons which I'm about to get into, so I may have some of the
details wrong.)

That's a showstopper from my perspective, since the window manager I use
A: is in long-tail maintenance mode, with very little work done over the
past decade (relatively speaking), and will certainly not be rewritten
as a Wayland compositor, and B: includes features which are built on top
of that multiple-desktops windows-larger-than-the-desktop X feature, and
which therefore probably cannot be implemented on top of Wayland.

For reference in case anyone is interested, that window manager is
Enlightenment DR16, also known as e16. It hasn't been in Debian for
quite several releases now, I compile it from the upstream source tree.

The solution to this is apparently XWeston[1], but I remember that being
reported as having performance problems (though I'm not finding those
reports again now) and I don't know how well supported it is even by its
developer; it doesn't seem to have been touched since its initial
development work in 2015.

I keep meaning to try out running e16 inside of XWeston, but to date
have not acquired a sufficiently circular tuit.

[1] https://github.com/ackalker/Xweston
    https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=185297

https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/2dna8v/xweston_xwayland_with_weston_the_other_way_round/

https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/how-can-i-install-wayland-on-slackware-4175694086/page2.html

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

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

#246212

The Wanderer wrote:

> Another limitation of XWayland as I've heard it described
> (by the same person on whose statements the previous
> paragraph is based, as well as in online discussions related
> to XWeston, below), as compared to a full X server: where
> you can (and, in fact, usually need to) run a window manager
> on top of an X server, I'm given to understand that you
> cannot run a window manager on top of XWayland. Instead, the
> window manager needs to be implemented as a Wayland
> compositor, and you then run XWayland inside of that. (I
> have not actually tried to do this myself, for reasons which
> I'm about to get into, so I may have some of the
> details wrong.)

OK, that stinks, I'm super-happy with my WM and it's
configured and all. See? How do they expect anyone to switch
to a supposedly superior solution when there are all these
obstacles and limitations? If it is just about replacing one
protocol by another why can't that be done for WMs as well?
And there are TONS of different WMs!

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

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

#246214

Greg Wooledge wrote:

>> OK, that stinks, I'm super-happy with my WM and it's
>> configured and all. See? How do they expect anyone to
>> switch to a supposedly superior solution when there are all
>> these obstacles and limitations?
>
> I don't think anyone is switching. What I think is happening
> is that old users (like us) are staying with what we know,
> and some new users are using Wayland/GNOME because it's the
> default that Debian selected for them. Some of the new users
> who grow up on Wayland may eventually move on to other
> desktop environments, or other windowing systems, and will
> become the next generation of old cranky gurus.

I switched from mplayer to mpv ...

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

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

#246216

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 10:27:18PM +0100, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> I switched from mplayer to mpv ...

And I switched from Latin-1 to UTF-8.

But until I see fvwm (or something close enough) ported to Wayland,
I have *no* incentive to give up X.

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

#246339

Dear Greg,

Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> writes:

> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 10:27:18PM +0100, Emanuel Berg wrote:
>> I switched from mplayer to mpv ...
>
> And I switched from Latin-1 to UTF-8.

Very much i like UTF-8 world! Thank you for using UTF-8, Greg ^^^

> (...thanks...)

Sincerely, Linux fan Byung-Hee

-- 
^고맙습니다 _和合團結_ 감사합니다_^))//

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

#246215

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 10:07:39PM +0100, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> OK, that stinks, I'm super-happy with my WM and it's
> configured and all. See? How do they expect anyone to switch
> to a supposedly superior solution when there are all these
> obstacles and limitations?

I don't think anyone is switching.  What I think is happening is that
old users (like us) are staying with what we know, and some new users
are using Wayland/GNOME because it's the default that Debian selected
for them.  Some of the new users who grow up on Wayland may eventually
move on to other desktop environments, or other windowing systems, and
will become the next generation of old cranky gurus.

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

#246219

Greg Wooledge writes:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 10:07:39PM +0100, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> > OK, that stinks, I'm super-happy with my WM and it's
> > configured and all. See? How do they expect anyone to switch
> > to a supposedly superior solution when there are all these
> > obstacles and limitations?
> 
> I don't think anyone is switching.  What I think is happening is that
> old users (like us) are staying with what we know, and some new users
> are using Wayland/GNOME because it's the default that Debian selected
> for them.  Some of the new users who grow up on Wayland may eventually
> move on to other desktop environments, or other windowing systems, and
> will become the next generation of old cranky gurus.

Words of wisdom, Greg.

I'm 79 and still use FVWM(1), c. '90s. Concerned about things like
memory footprint, speed, configuration capability, reliability,
24/7/365 stability, intuitive operation, etc.

My ~/.emacs is set up like the 'e' editor from PL1, c. '60s with line
block moves and indent, 8^).

    John

-- 

John Conover, conover@panix.com, http://www.johncon.com/

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

#246217

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2022-03-11 at 16:07, Emanuel Berg wrote:

> The Wanderer wrote:
> 
>> Another limitation of XWayland as I've heard it described (by the
>> same person on whose statements the previous paragraph is based, as
>> well as in online discussions related to XWeston, below), as
>> compared to a full X server: where you can (and, in fact, usually
>> need to) run a window manager on top of an X server, I'm given to
>> understand that you cannot run a window manager on top of XWayland.
>> Instead, the window manager needs to be implemented as a Wayland 
>> compositor, and you then run XWayland inside of that. (I have not
>> actually tried to do this myself, for reasons which I'm about to
>> get into, so I may have some of the details wrong.)
> 
> OK, that stinks, I'm super-happy with my WM and it's configured and
> all. See? How do they expect anyone to switch to a supposedly
> superior solution when there are all these obstacles and limitations?
> If it is just about replacing one protocol by another why can't that
> be done for WMs as well?

There may be multiple reasons, but one of them is that the feature set
supported by Wayland (and/or the associated protocol, if any) is not a
superset of the feature set supported by the X protocol.

That said, you may still find value in XWeston, and I'd be interested to
hear reports from anyone who tries it - the more obscure and niche the
window manager they try it with, the better.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

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

#246218

The Wanderer wrote:

> There may be multiple reasons, but one of them is that the
> feature set supported by Wayland (and/or the associated
> protocol, if any) is not a superset of the feature set
> supported by the X protocol.

They should have covered everything used anyway ... this must
be a blunder on their part.

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

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

#246220

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2022-03-11 at 16:52, Emanuel Berg wrote:

> The Wanderer wrote:
> 
>> There may be multiple reasons, but one of them is that the feature
>> set supported by Wayland (and/or the associated protocol, if any)
>> is not a superset of the feature set supported by the X protocol.
> 
> They should have covered everything used anyway ... this must be a
> blunder on their part.

My understanding (which is at best secondhand, and may well not be fully
accurate, if accurate at all) is that they thought they *were* doing
that, since obviously that one feature is a historical curiosity which
can't possibly be useful to anybody, and is only present in the spec
because the people who wrote the spec mistakenly thought it might turn
out to be useful.

Only to discover later that people actually *did* use that feature, but
by that point it was too late to implement that feature in Wayland
without breaking a lot of other things and/or requiring a deeper
redesign than would be deemed practical.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

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

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web