Software works best when the developers take responsibility for solving user's problems.
> Wayland, which is a protocol
This is wayland's biggest weakness. The effect is diffusion of responsibility.
> Wayland, which is a protocol
This is wayland's biggest weakness. The effect is diffusion of responsibility.
I'm not. My comment doesn't address the latency of gnome shell. I understand the boring technical distinctions between wayland and wayland client libraries and wayland display servers and gnome shell and mutter and sway, blah blah blah. Much like I understand that Linux is a kernel. That it is inspired by UNIX, but it is technically not a UNIX. I also understand that if someone describes themselves as a Linux user they probably don't just mean that they have a Android phone or that the display controller in their dishwasher or wireless access point happens to include Linux the kernel.
The "well acksually wayland is just the name of the protocol" that emerges whenever a problem is brought up is a symptom of the underlying problem with wayland the system. The confusion that gives rise to these deflections is also a symptom of that problem.
By Conway's law systems end up resembling the organisations that produce them. In this way the design of wayland the system seems to be designed by people who don't want to work together. I can see a parallel with microservice architecture.
Imagine comparing HTTP1.1 vs HTTP3. These are protocols, but in practice one compares implementations. I can pick curl for http1.1, but Python for http3, and http3 would very likely measures as slower.
Is that the protocols fault?
> well acksually
It’s not the protocol’s fault, but the system and organisation that brought it.
I know this because I worked at a place which was entirely based around microservices using Rest HTTP as the protocol/interface, some teams had to use alternate methods because HTTP protocol was the bottleneck.
I very much doubt that Wayland makes a difference for this test; Wayland is for IPC between the client and server. Moving the cursor around is done by the server, without needing to talk to the client.
I do not. Does anyone know a good but quick introduction into these concepts and the problems they cause or fix?
All I know is that Wayland was supposed to be faster by taking some slow parts out of the loop, but that doesn't seem to be working, according to these figures.
I would just rather pay someone 100 bucks and not care whose fault it is. (And yes, that's why I don't use Linux on the desktop anymore, as much as I loved i3 and tiling environments.)
It's probably in a hundred places that all add up, all of which are no particular person's responsibility. So, that probably means that 10 people from 10 different projects need to get on a call or mailing list together and find a plan of attack.
But it won't happen. And people will keep wondering why Linux can't ever get a foothold on the desktop.
Every time someone complains about wayland there's someone informing you how it achtually it isn't.
The organisation of Wayland sounds great, but it is very hard to share optimised code between compositors since key parts that affect performance (in this case latency) are largely developed outside of any shared library code.
The "organisation" of Wayland reminds me of the UNIX wars; this is going to get worse before it gets better.
SVR4 Wayland anyone?
xref the time it has taken the Rust rewrite of the GNU coreutils and arguably coreutils is a much easier problem.
Maintained: Only for bugfixes, except by metux, who is working on starting a fork.
This isn't a big issue because Xorg splits a basic GUI into dozens of different daemons and services (compositors, window managers, input daemons) so it seems like there are different X11 implementations even when there's usually only Xorg.
The "problem" with this in Wayland is that before people 'ran Xorg with GNOME on top", now they just run GNOME the same way they run Chrome or Firefox to use HTTP - it will take time for people to get used to this.
I think the answer is also Wayland. It's very confusing because there is wayland the protocol and wayland the system, where the protocol is a part of the system - but there is no separate name for it. When people discuss wayland they are very rarely talking about wayland the protocol, and are much more likely talking about wayland the system.