> which seem very condescending and out of place. Many people use focus-follows-mouse (including myself -- I also use a tiling WM) and find it to be much superior to click-to-focus.
Sorry, it wasn't meant to be condescending, only show that X11 itself cannot itself enforce a basic policy for focus management. I've updated the tone of the article to respect that a bit better.
> I can't quite grok this, but I'm pretty sure he's saying that the entire Weston compositor is around 2-3KLOC, compared to the tens of KLOC used to implement the corresponding parts of the X subsystems. But his comment about mutter is rather disingenuous -- dwm, for example, is a complete X window manager in ~2200 lines.
That's what I'm saying. Was the language unclear?
dwm is an extremely simple window manager. It uses core X drawing protocols to draw its UI, even for drawing text, which don't have antialiasing. It doesn't do compositing.
Again, to set up the appropriate features for a modern desktop environment is as much code as it would be to write dwm, which is an extremely simple window manager.
> To run such a beast under Wayland, the dwm folks would need to write an entire compositor to talk to the kernel and manage the framebuffer, in direct conflict with the project's goal of having an easy-to-grok, easy-to-hack WM.
You don't have to use libdrm. You could use OpenWF or EGL, which manage that part for you.
> Perhaps somebody more knowledgeable than me could answer: Would it be possible to write a Wayland compositor that will talk to X window managers, so that xmonad/wmii/dwm/whatever will work without serious modification?
It's possible, but it would be difficult. At the same time, you'd have to implement a lot of features of the X, so you're better off running Xorg or Kdrive, and putting it under Wayland, like Xwayland.