Wayland sisters, I don't feel so good...
>>107740570
>>107740570X doesn't have hdr and proper mixed dpi support.It's better at everything else that matter.Muh clipboard isolation is maybe nice to have but i don't really give a fuck about it desu.
>>107740570>Wayland breaks everythingThat's the point, you dingus. You don't DESERVE a GUI.
>>107740570>clicks revisions>full of "oops turns out i made this up" memoryholes
>text text textlefties really cant meme huh
>>107740646fpbp
Can't wait until wine's wayland driver sorts its minor issues out so I can finally run a full wayland session with no xwayland nonsense.
>>107740770nigger
letoram, save us from this Wayland shit with your display server
>>107740669How close do you reckon xlibre and/or phoenix is to getting hdr support?
>>107741367>xlibreLMAO>PhoenixWill require updates to existing apps for the extended protocol. So it's just Wayland 2.
I've been thinking. What if someone (not me, too lazy) made a Wayland compositor that basically functions as an X server. So it'd expose its own protocol (inspired by X11) to let other programs (WMs) talk to it and tell it where to place surfaces and stuff. This way we'd only need to maintain a single compositor and WMs and DEs would talk with it via this new protocol.Is such a thing possible in the Wayland architecture?
>xlibre shill threadLOL
>>107740570It's pretty dishonest to label everything handled by the compositor as unavailable when Wayland is just a protocol, not a specific implementation like X is.
>>107741996X is a protocol, not a specific implementation like X.org is.
>>107742017The protocol derives from the implementation, not the other way around. It wouldn't be meaningful to talk about "correctness", X *is what it is*.
>>107742044>It wouldn't be meaningful to talk about "correctness"Sure it would.>X *is what it is*So is Wayland.
>>107740570so... wayland blocks three-letter glowies from recording my screen, capturing my keystrokes, and much more?based
>>107740570>("We're treated like hostile threat actors on our own workstations")LmaoI just know when D-Bus gets deprecated you faggots are going to sing its praises.
>>107741996The "you can't criticize Wayland because it's a protocol" cope is getting old. If there isn't a protocol supported by a strong majority of compositors that provides a given feature, the feature should be considered unsupported. If X11 had theoretical provisions for some feature in the protocol, but that feature wasn't actually available in X.org, we'd consider it unsupported too. Anything else would be dishonest.>>107742077It's pure security theater, you're not meaningfully more protected. There's a ton of ways to exfiltrate data, like reading your home directory or using LD_PRELOAD tricks. Wayland's "security" is simultaneously too lax and too strict. Too lax because it doesn't provide meaningful protection; too strict because security is merely an excuse for designing things that Wayland devs don't like out of the protocol. Configurable access control is a thing that exists, so there's no need to have a gimped protocol to achieve security.
>>107742943>The "you can't criticize Wayland because it's a protocol" cope is getting old. If there isn't a protocol supported by a strong majority of compositors that provides a given feature, the feature should be considered unsupported. If X11 had theoretical provisions for some feature in the protocol, but that feature wasn't actually available in X.org, we'd consider it unsupported too. Anything else would be dishonest.But the majority of the things labelled "Not Supported" here actually are supported in the majority of compositors, it's not theoretical. There's no loss of functionality in any real implementation, but because it's not required as part of the protocol they're claiming it's unsupported. It's very dishonest.
