Linux

48372 readers

1216 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

122

The technical merits of Wayland are mostly irrelevant (utcc.utoronto.ca)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

187 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In response to Wayland Breaks Your Bad Software

I say that the technical merits are irrelevant because I don't believe that they're a major factor any more in most people moving or not moving to Wayland.

With only a slight amount of generalization, none of these people will be moved by Wayland's technical merits. The energetic people who could be persuaded by technical merits to go through switching desktop environments or in some cases replacing hardware (or accepting limited features) have mostly moved to Wayland already. The people who remain on X are there either because they don't want to rebuild their desktop environment, they don't want to do without features and performance they currently have, or their Linux distribution doesn't think their desktop should switch to Wayland yet.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 41 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]

[–] orangeboats 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I feel that the biggest mistake of X11's protocol design is the idea of a "root window" that is supposed to cover the whole screen.

Perhaps that worked greatly in the 1990s, but it's just completely incompatible with multi-displays that we commonly see in modern setups. Hacks upon hacks were involved to make multi-displays a possibility on X11. The root window no longer corresponded to a single display. In heterogenous display setups, part of the root window is actually invisible.

Later on we decided to stack compositing on top of the already-hacky mess, and it was so bad that many opted to disable the compositor (no Martha, compositors are more than wobbly windows!).

And then there's the problem of sandboxing programs... Which is completely unmappable to X11 even with hacks.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Multiple displays work fine. The only thing that needs to be drawn in the root window is attractive backgrounds sized to your displays I'm not sure why you think that is hacky or complicated.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Multiple displays only work as long as you have identical resolutions and refresh rates. Good luck mixing monitors with different scaling factors and refresh rates on X11.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I run multiple refresh rates without any trouble, one 165hz monitor alongside my other 60hz ones. Is that supposed to be broken somehow?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

This wasn't true in 2003 when I started using Linux in fact the feature is so old I'm not sure exactly when it was implemented. You have always been able to have different resolutions and in fact different scaling factors. It works like this

You scale your lower DPI display or displays UP to match your highest DPI and let X scale down to the physical size. HIGHER / LOWER = SCALE FACTOR. So with 2 27" monitors where one is 4k and the other is 1080p the factor is 2, a 27" 4K with a 24" 1080p is roughly 1.75.

Configured like so everything is sharp and UI elements are the same size on every screen. If your monitors are vertically aligned you could put a window between monitors and see the damn characters lined up correctly.

If you use the soooo unfriendly Nvidia GPU you can actually configure this in its GUI for configuring your monitors. If not you can set with xrandr the argument is --scale shockingly enough

Different refresh rates also of course work but you ARE limited to the lower refresh rate. This is about the only meaningful limitation.

[–] orangeboats 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's the fact that the root window is a lie.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But your code is UNSAFE

[–] orangeboats 1 points 1 year ago

...What? The root window was supposed to mean "the whole screen". It no longer does - that's the lie. Then people created XRandR to help work around it - that's the hack.

[–] woelkchen 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is not an insult to the people behind X11.

The people behind X11 agree and that's why they founded Wayland.