| |||||||||||||
LFCS 2012: X and WaylandLFCS 2012: X and WaylandPosted Apr 15, 2012 16:46 UTC (Sun) by Tet (subscriber, #5433)In reply to: LFCS 2012: X and Wayland by quintesse Parent article: LFCS 2012: X and Wayland 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 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.
(Log in to post comments)
LFCS 2012: X and Wayland Posted Apr 15, 2012 17:11 UTC (Sun) by quintesse (subscriber, #14569) [Link]
I'll stagger you some more. Windows and OS X are doing fine. You might not like it but millions of people all over the world use their desktops, and the world does not go up in flames.
But of course, according to you that can't really be true because they have "massive problems". Really now?
LFCS 2012: X and Wayland Posted Apr 15, 2012 20:42 UTC (Sun) by Tet (subscriber, #5433) [Link]
Yes, really. To quote Esther Schindler, "Microsoft's biggest and most dangerous contribution to the software industry may be the degree to which it has lowered user expectations." You claim that people are using Windows (and OS X, which as I've said I haven't used, so can't comment on) without problems. But realistically, if you look around an average office, you see people having problems all the time, and just accepting it as normal behaviour. And a perfect example of that is applications that hang and you can't even iconify them because the application is responsible for window management. You can claim that's not a problem until the cows come home. But it happens, and it happens sufficiently frequently that I'm happy calling it a problem.
LFCS 2012: X and Wayland Posted Apr 15, 2012 21:18 UTC (Sun) by quintesse (subscriber, #14569) [Link]
So these are the "massive problems"? Not being able to iconify an application that hangs? Yes, and you can't move the window around either. Sucks I know, but hardly earth-shattering.
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.
LFCS 2012: X and Wayland Posted Apr 16, 2012 23:15 UTC (Mon) by BenHutchings (subscriber, #37955) [Link]
They fixed minimise and close in Windows 2000; I'm not sure whether moving is a more recent issue.
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.
|
|||||||||||||