|Re: [Sawfish] Fedora, Gnome, Weyland and sawfish|
[ Thread Index |
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/sawfish Archives
Can you provide a link to what you are referring, please?
Well, X is a monolithic thing. But Wayland either drops features or
delegates them to someone else, and most of the time they seem to brush
off requests for features with "well, each implementation can always
implement that (in the way they want)". Which leaves us with the current
Take RedShift for example, previously we had one tool that worked
everywhere without questions. Now with Wayland it is either in the
compositor or not at all, which means that every compositor has to
implement the features RedShift provided (and people are even
cheering for it, see Gnome).
As previously said, I'm kinda bitter about that because I see it as a
step back, but hey, X is not going anywhere within the next two
decades, so I guess its kinda okay for now.
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 17:36:22 +1000
Allan Duncan <amd2345@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 15/04/17 05:11, Robert 'Bobby' Zenz wrote:
> > There is no such thing as a "window manager" on Wayland, Wayland is
> > only a protocol. A so called"compositor" must implement that
> > protocol. The problem: everything has to be in the compositor,
> > which means you either implement the whole display server or
> > nothing. The concept of window managers is non-existent under
> > Wayland.
> OK, I am getting the picture now:
> I was under the impression from Daniel Stone's writings that wayland
> was only part of the rendering chain. Daniel had made the point that
> X was this horror of a monolithic bit of code (which he had spent too
> much of his life on) and that wayland would allow the
> compartmentalisation of the code.
> From what has been said here it seems that the monolith is back.