Re: [Sawfish] Fedora, Gnome, Weyland and sawfish

[Allan Duncan <amd2345@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 15/04/17 18:17, Robert 'Bobby' Zenz wrote:
> 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
> situation.
>
> 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.

After I posted my last, I read through the wayland doc material written
by Kristian Høgsberg of Intel (came with the wayland modules).

Although it explains the overall changes made, mainly a reduction of
the control path, it appears that there isn't any fundamental change.
There is still a series of clients that generate buffers and the compositor
which displays them, now directly between the kernel and the clients,
not a side call from the central X block.

Unexplained was the nitty gritty such as where something like the window
manager would exist.  Under X is it one of the clients, or is it called from
the X compositor?  If it would still be a client then the level of 
conversion
would be presumably less daunting, although a tall order for this small 
group.

--
Sawfish ML