Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
PostgreSQL 9.3 beta: Federated databases and more
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 9, 2013
(Nearly) full tickless operation in 3.10
LFCS 2012: X and Wayland
Posted Apr 13, 2012 20:13 UTC (Fri) by k8to (subscriber, #15413)
The statement was clearly that windows would get the positioning confused. Perhaps you're laboring under the misconception that everyone puts the close box in the same place? (This is false, by the way).
From where I sit, nearly every prefab environments gets the window decorations quite wrong, by putting destructive, unrecoverable decoration buttons directly adjacent to nondestructive, recoverable buttons.
For example, nearly everyone puts close adjacent to things like minimize, so an attempted minimize can lose your work.
I'm certainly not going to accept an environment that allows the app developer to inflict this kind of stupidity on me.
Posted Apr 14, 2012 2:55 UTC (Sat) by quintesse (subscriber, #14569)
Posted Apr 14, 2012 13:01 UTC (Sat) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164)
Posted Apr 14, 2012 13:22 UTC (Sat) by quintesse (subscriber, #14569)
People come up with red herrings of things that will surely happen if we allow CSD while ignoring the facts that show that on other OSes they seem to be doing fine, no complete chaos of every app for himself and just drawing the decorations however they feel like (and examples that if an app really wants they can break the rules even on X, ie Chrome).
Apps built on top of the software made by their respective DEs won't even know anything changed, the core software in Gnome and KDE will take over the rendering of the decorations. So in one fell swoop a large quantity of apps will behave exactly as before.
Most other apps will not go through the trouble of rendering their own decoration either and will use some kind of system service/library for that (probably the same Gnome and KDE will be using).
So that only leaves us with those apps that decide to do their own rendering for some reason and that's when we have to remember that Linux/BSD are highly managed environments where apps that misbehave will probably get fixed or ignored.
And that's why I think CSD is not the end of the world.
Posted Apr 14, 2012 15:49 UTC (Sat) by apoelstra (subscriber, #75205)
How will any of these know if I don't want -any- decorations, just a 10px title bar with a title on it?
These "other OSes" you claim are working fine, are so inflexible, and have such insane defaults (which for the most part cannot be changed) that they are nearly unusable to me. This is hardly what I call "working fine". Not to mention the insanity individual apps can, and do, foist on the system..
Posted Apr 14, 2012 16:11 UTC (Sat) by quintesse (subscriber, #14569)
Yes those other OSes or less flexible, what does that have to do with anything? We were talking about being able to provide a consistent desktop experience, even when using CSD. And talk about insanity, you *really* want to use the Linux desktop as an example of saneness???
Posted Apr 16, 2012 18:43 UTC (Mon) by sorpigal (subscriber, #36106)
Putting window controls outside of the application is one of the things that the Linux desktop does which is undeniably better than the alternatives. Why do you want to throw away an advantage? You seem to be assuming that the way things work is "just" an accidental side effect of the implementation and not, as it is, a feature.
The correct thing to do is to find a way to retain the experience we have now--which is well liked--and add technically superior underpinnings. So far I have heard that Wayland will throw away valuable and desirable features with the only justification given as "We want to improve the implementation and it's too hard to make it keep working the right way afterwards, so we decided to assume that no one cares."
If the new system really is superior then re-implement the old system on top; if you can't, it isn't.
Posted Apr 16, 2012 21:48 UTC (Mon) by quintesse (subscriber, #14569)
We already know that X is better at handling unresponsive apps, but that's not something that's impossible to do with CSD.
So what else is so superior that people will not even wait until Wayland has actually something usable to show to before running it into the ground? (which is by the way the ONLY thing I've been trying to clear up all this time. Of course if Wayland can maintain current X functionality I'll be happy, but I'm just not convinced I'll be unhappy if they can't)
Posted Apr 17, 2012 11:55 UTC (Tue) by sorpigal (subscriber, #36106)
Posted Apr 17, 2012 12:04 UTC (Tue) by quintesse (subscriber, #14569)
Posted Apr 17, 2012 19:09 UTC (Tue) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
Posted Apr 18, 2012 8:12 UTC (Wed) by renox (subscriber, #23785)
Except of course that the same people at different times may do totally different things due to changing priorities, which means you have _no_point_.
Posted Apr 19, 2012 18:46 UTC (Thu) by tuna (guest, #44480)
Posted Apr 14, 2012 16:45 UTC (Sat) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
Posted Apr 15, 2012 16:46 UTC (Sun) by Tet (subscriber, #5433)
I'm somewhat staggered by this comment. I don't know which world you live in, but it doesn't seem to be the same one as me. I can't speak about OS X, but client side window decoration causes massive problems on Windows in the real world. Further, the very concept seems fundamentally flawed because it assumes that all applications will be written using an appropriate toolkit, which just plain isn't true. It isn't true now, it hasn't been true for the last 30 years, and it won't be true in the future. Unlike many X fans, I'm not opposed to Wayland. But I'm very strongly opposed to the way it's going about some things. Notably removing my control over my environment.
Posted Apr 15, 2012 17:11 UTC (Sun) by quintesse (subscriber, #14569)
But of course, according to you that can't really be true because they have "massive problems". Really now?
Posted Apr 15, 2012 20:42 UTC (Sun) by Tet (subscriber, #5433)
Posted Apr 15, 2012 21:18 UTC (Sun) by quintesse (subscriber, #14569)
Oh and wait, in Windows 7 I actually *can* do it, seems that MS after many many years finally fixed that one.
But the people working on Wayland have said they've already thought about possible solutions to these problems. So why not wait and see what happens?
And if we have to talk about the lowering of expectations, I've been a Linux user for many years and if it has taught me anything it is not to have too many expectations and lots of patience.
Posted Apr 16, 2012 23:15 UTC (Mon) by BenHutchings (subscriber, #37955)
Windows had the compatibility problem that the window manager used to be just a library that would run in the client processes. While most clients would just pass mouse clicks on the decorations into the default message handler, some of them relied on being notified in advance of any change to their window and being able to override it. Changing that ran the risk of breaking applications.
X applications don't assume they can have this control, and Wayland application won't be able to do so either. Being responsible for rendering decorations doesn't mean becoming the window manager, though certainly lack of visible feedback to window decorations is a pain.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds