Comment by xani_ | Hacker News Reader

Comment by xani_ | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

No, it's wayland architecture problem.

It forces every single DE that will use it to reinvent same thing. There is no good reason to do that, just a lot of duplicated effort. You will not want to have different mouse behaviour when you use different WM. Having it pluggable is fine, even desired, but pushing it on every DE is just waste of effort and just bumps the bar required for any DE to move to wayland.

> GNOME is probably worst DE imaginable. After 20 years, they still don't have thumbnails in filepicker and even dropped preview side pane in GTK4. I can't even.

For me it peaked somewhere in 1.x, 2.x was prettier version of it, after that they completely lost me. And their constant dumb arrogance with assuming what their users want is just cherry on cake of shit. And the "fuck the compatibility, just change APIs will nilly" attitude they got after 2.x

That is exactly what libraries are for, not protocols.

Should Web Standards mandate the use of a given JS implementation because it hinders the creation of new ones?

Also, the million+1 “de” under X are more like skins, there is absolutely no reason for them to exist in that form, they could just build on top of another wayland compositor.

Okay ? It can be lib. Just make wayland use it, not be thing every DE needs to. DE shouldn't care about where the mouse movement data comes from and should not need to compensate based on device.

There is no wayland.exe, it is a protocol.

But there is an implementation - to that GP was referring.

No, there is Gnome’s, KDE’s, Weston’s (the reference), and Sway (wlroots)’s implementation.

This latter is pretty much a library to build your own de with minimal code up on top.

If that's the case, that there's no common code they're all built on, then why does anyone talk about "Wayland" anything?

All these conversations end up kinda pointless because of a sort of "it works on my machine[desktop environment]".

Well the conclusion is that it's never a wayland bug because wayland never defines X feature that users are missing.

That is a correct conclusion, in the same way that many issues with X features are not actually issues with the X server. Over the years a lot of things have been moved out of the X server into client libraries, or into Mesa, or into D-Bus, or into Wayland...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com