|Re: [Sawfish] Fedora, Gnome, Weyland and sawfish|
[ Thread Index |
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/sawfish Archives
- To: sawfish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [Sawfish] Fedora, Gnome, Weyland and sawfish
- From: Allan Duncan <amd2345@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 20:41:44 +1000
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.com.au; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=9QSJHz/LPSUDXqyHUr /SK76Ge9uiZv+AiwE2NO/oKCM=; b=kCpZfEmrFXhEES6ajtlgeh/rLrxQK6MCHM EwUGslIwpxMzgO9AA5QO0Way1XhQ39zABcQdmdQmVvSzrPGrFOjJGW+47ePKDU/A Cn/pugjfiKgtJSNzfElj1G837yAwlvVTZPST6a1HuF5+3IFp4vdRLbi1I3g26XKU dZJfVx8MvBdQZ5ngY6oibR/OVEwpBouXE3zim5sBs2eLm3utHekeE9tjn7yTSoCt 06Pu5Op3qhBq68Eh8MbyggzMw9z+9/DWtnJn9WtzklT/lBvjPmRF1pfYQHhupbLA 8OyZ0omAC4vQ6FdnaS6lBoxjIwgTmBy6y1CnYRhOLRCp9UnQt+4w==
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=9QSJHz/LPSUDXqyHUr/SK76Ge9uiZv+AiwE2NO/oKCM=; b=ONBpWFGe cNFb9hIhvHibBlDq96azuTcfR2OVbTjb9OPArrBgwiw2THjkkC0JPUfcuuEUzyLv 9g08fmlX64KJpAifthcDlnzqSskM3C4mTy0TgNIPRpAOI7HHHUktIPZfgYG1ohar Q/vAaukOuV0n+r0OYonn8GnB4/oWNf3n3VAYT5lHWqiH/h8xfJ6lcGavPp4jJJCT lXEWickjNR8qEHn/G8t7d0SqldKIs7Fx+SzrehjYZdik+yKIeF0D0kj+TRl95xXF nkq0jqjWzzO9p2q//NRFbMq74YX/3kVqvPPRmunrci2VBnOrWwQ6xVD6MzrU7aVA xaqtea2e5T78Jg==
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
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
would be presumably less daunting, although a tall order for this small