[dev] psgck - read only pwck/grpck that doesn't suck as much

[Lars Lindqvist]

I've just replaced the shadow package on my slackware systems with the
su, passwd etc programs from ubase, but was missing pwck and grpck. So
I threw something together, maybe not particularly suckless (wc -l *.c
gives 548..), but if somebody might find it useful, here [0] it is.

cheers
Lars

[0] https://github.com/e5150/psgck

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[Staven]

On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 10:47:31PM +0200, Martin Kühne wrote:
> libXmu for rounded corners.
 
kill me

Re: [dev] Wayland vs X11

[Staven]

On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 06:04:20PM +0200, patrick295767 patrick295767 wrote:
> Quote:
> Display server expert Daniel Stone explains what is really happening

Display server expert.

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[Timothy Rice]

On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 12:48:05AM +0200, hadrien.lac...@openmailbox.org wrote:
> I'd say cwm instead of evilwm. When I had to use an ant screen laptop, it was 
> pretty nice. The only thing I lacked is workspaces.

Ah, someone who knows how to have a discussion, how lovely! :D

~ Tim

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[hadrien . lacour]

I'd say cwm instead of evilwm. When I had to use an ant screen laptop, it was 
pretty nice. The only thing I lacked is workspaces.

On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 07:25:56AM +1000, Timothy Rice wrote:
> Hi Pat,
> 
> > http://incise.org/not-so-tiny-window-managers.html
> 
> On that list I see evilwm. Apparently it is stacking, and if I'm not
> mistaken it appears to have a similar size to dwm (maybe even smaller).
> 
> So why propose JWM instead of EvilWM?
> 
> 
> ~ Tim
> 

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[Timothy Rice]

On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 12:30:17AM +0200, patrick295767 patrick295767 wrote:
> MIght you have a well-balanced discussion, not over-too-serious or the
> other side? simply just in the middle, balanced.

A nice sentiment, but indeed for it to be a discussion it should be
two-sided. At the moment you are not listening to what anyone is telling
you. When someone says something, either agree or disagree (with reasons);
going off on some new tangent without acknowledging what other people have
said is to show you don't care about the discussion.

If you want it to be light-hearted, make a joke. If you want it to be a
discussion, make sure you engage with people on your discussion points.

~ Tim

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[patrick295767 patrick295767]

MIght you have a well-balanced discussion, not over-too-serious or the
other side? simply just in the middle, balanced.

Gnome is sure heavy. I wrote "check the code". After considering the
code, it might be nice input for a nice idea of making a fork of it.

Once done, the code can be considered or not. Nothing else.


2016-08-03 0:14 GMT+02:00 hiro <23h...@gmail.com>:
>> /*
>>   JWM v2.3.5 by Joe Wingbermuehle
>>   compiled options: confirm icons nls xbm
>> */
>>
>> My theme:
>>
>>
>>   FreeSans-9:bold
>>   4
>>   20
>>   
>>  white
>>  #70849d:#2e3a67
>>  black
>>  1.0
>>   
>>   
>>  #aa
>>  #808488:#303438
>>  black
>>  0.5:0.9:0.1
>>   
>>
>
> TROLLOLOLOLOL LOLOLOL LOLOLOL
>

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[hiro]

> /*
>   JWM v2.3.5 by Joe Wingbermuehle
>   compiled options: confirm icons nls xbm
> */
>
> My theme:
>
>
>   FreeSans-9:bold
>   4
>   20
>   
>  white
>  #70849d:#2e3a67
>  black
>  1.0
>   
>   
>  #aa
>  #808488:#303438
>  black
>  0.5:0.9:0.1
>   
>

TROLLOLOLOLOL LOLOLOL LOLOLOL

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[Timothy Rice]

On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 11:31:53PM +0200, patrick295767 patrick295767 wrote:
> I just compile without xinerama, and dwm is slighty lighter than jwm.
> If you stick to the minimum with jwm, it is not that heavy at all. This is 
> nice.
>
> Why jwm, because after chopping some lines into code, it can give a
> nice minimalist fork.

Sure. I am not saying JWM is bad. Compared to, say, Gnome, I am sure JWM is
fantastic.

However, this conversation is not about comparing JWM to the worst-case
scenario. This conversation is about you nominating JWM for a mention on
the suckless website.

Problems with the conversation so far:

1. You nominated JWM for inclusion on the suckless website without giving
  good reasons why.
2. You have now switched to a different topic about forking JWM, again
  without giving good reasons why.

In return:

1. It has been explained to you why JWM should not be considered suckless
  software, but you have not acknowledged this explanation.
2. It appears that EvilWM obviates the need for forking JWM, but you have
  not acknowledged the suggestion of using EvilWM.
3. Someone has already called you out for being a troll. I was willing to
  extend a more charitable assessment, but you have failed to acknowledge
  their concerns and you have failed to correct your behaviour.

Please aspire to a more focused style of discussion in which you actually
engage with people.


~ Tim

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[patrick295767 patrick295767]

I just compile without xinerama, and dwm is slighty lighter than jwm.
If you stick to the minimum with jwm, it is not that heavy at all. This is nice.

Why jwm, because after chopping some lines into code, it can give a
nice minimalist fork.



2016-08-02 23:25 GMT+02:00 Timothy Rice :
> Hi Pat,
>
>> http://incise.org/not-so-tiny-window-managers.html
>
> On that list I see evilwm. Apparently it is stacking, and if I'm not
> mistaken it appears to have a similar size to dwm (maybe even smaller).
>
> So why propose JWM instead of EvilWM?
>
>
> ~ Tim
>

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[Timothy Rice]

Hi Pat,

> http://incise.org/not-so-tiny-window-managers.html

On that list I see evilwm. Apparently it is stacking, and if I'm not
mistaken it appears to have a similar size to dwm (maybe even smaller).

So why propose JWM instead of EvilWM?


~ Tim

Re: [dev] Wayland vs X11

[Michael Forney]

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Silvan Jegen  wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 08:41:57PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 20:33:39 +0200
> > Silvan Jegen  wrote:
> >
> > Hey Silvan,
> >
> > > One can argue that having a simple protocol *is* the suckless part of
> > > Wayland (dont forget Xprint[0] :P). The Wayland protocol also does not
> > > allow for communication between clients directly[1] but only through
> > > the Wayland compositor.
> >
> > yeah, but omitting the rest is not suckless, it just turns everything
> > into a big mess. You might say anything about X.org, but at least you
> > can more or less rely on a set of features available to you, even if
> > they are "default" XFree86 extensions.

You are comparing a specific implementation of X11 (Xorg) with a
protocol (wayland).

If you chose to implement your own suckless X11 server, you'd still
have all the problems you are describing (rendering, buffer
management, input handling, joysticks, etc), and probably a lot more
because of legacy X11 baggage.

> > > I see two main issues that stem from switching to Wayland.
> > > 1. With Wayland there will be no non-compositing desktop.
> >
> > I don't see this aspect too critically. See how Wayland performs vs.
> > X in limited environments[0].
>
> I always assumed that having a compositing window manager has negative
> performance impact but at least according to
>
> https://blog.martin-graesslin.com/blog/2013/05/compositing-and-lightweight-desktops/

Xorg is a compositor too... At the end of the day, *something* has to
combine all your windows into a single frame to display them on your
monitor.

I didn't read the article, but presumably the slowness is due to
Xcomposite redirecting to some compositing windowing manager. If the
display server does the compositing (as in normal Xorg, or a typical
wayland server), there is no such problem.

> > > 2. Since rendering is done client-side and there is no Xlib, it may be
> > >harder to get pixel on your screen if you don't want to use one of
> > > the big GUI libraries like Qt or GTK2/3/++/whatev.
> >
> > Yeah, very good point. Also, clients cannot rely on compositor
> > features, because each compositor can do things differently. There
> > really is no simple way to write software and making it deliberately
> > hard almost makes you believe its a GTK/Qt conspiracy of some sort.
>
> > > As a non-expert in this space I am not sure the Wayland future is
> > > looking that bleak though.
> > > Velox[2] does not look bloated to me and wayland-enabled st[3] is only
> > > barely larger than the current X11 version's git tip (though the
> > > wayland version depends on wld[4]).
> >
> > How can you compare the two? You need a third-party library (wld) to
> > get shit done. Just wait down the line how much of a fucking mess we
> > are going to have!

With X11 and Xlib, you need an X server that implements every drawing
routine you might want to call.

But maybe you are arguing for server-side rendering over the display
server connection. I think it's simpler to just have the client do the
rendering, which it can do however it pleases.

-- 
Michael Forney 

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[Timothy Rice]

> jwm needs to be simplified and optimized first. Giving a new birth name 
> ??WM...

Well, make it happen. Show, don't tell.

~ Tim

Re: [dev] Wayland vs X11

[patrick295767 patrick295767]

It was indeed quite interesting decision from Fedora. It seems that
Fedora is serious about it.

"The rumors of its death are greatly exaggerated... Sailfish OS has been
using Wayland from the start and Fedora wants to make Wayland the default
for their next release (I wouldn't count on it)."

2016-08-02 22:54 GMT+02:00 Silvan Jegen :
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 10:16:06PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 22:08:08 +0200
>> Silvan Jegen  wrote:
>> > Since Wayland is only a protocol, as long as both the client and the
>> > server follow it closely enough both the clients and the server will
>> > be happy. What is crucial is that the protocol is minimal and strictly
>> > defined however. I am still cautiously optimistic that this is and
>> > will be the case...
>>
>> It's not only about client-server interaction, it's about how you for
>> instance should capture input in a compositor. You could use libinput,
>> or a gazillion other libs out there with different levels of device
>> support. I can already see the bug reports because this and that
>> joystick, touchpad, whatever does not work in a specific compositor.
>
> The Wayland protocol deals with input as well so as long as the clients
> speak it, they are golden. libinput is supposed to make input handling
> uniform on all Wayland compositors and can also be used on X11. I am
> not sure whether Joysticks/gamepads are handled in it though.
>
>
>> And even clients have to do their own font-antialiasing. Sounds like a
>> lot of fun! Please stop repeating the propaganda spread on the web,
>> Wayland is not DoA without reason, and there is also a reason why
>> nobody uses it nowadays other than to play around with it. It's a
>
> The rumors of its death are greatly exaggerated... Sailfish OS has been
> using Wayland from the start and Fedora wants to make Wayland the default
> for their next release (I wouldn't count on it).
>
>
>> horrible mess and the wayland devs expect us to boil the ocean without
>> any clear benefits at hand.
>
> Wayland is supposed to give us a "tear-free" desktop at least... :P
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Silvan
>
>

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[patrick295767 patrick295767]

It is on the way, I look for more ideas.

What surprised me is that there aren't so much nice code for tiny
window managers.
There are quite too little choices today.
http://incise.org/not-so-tiny-window-managers.html



2016-08-02 23:08 GMT+02:00 Timothy Rice :
>> jwm needs to be simplified and optimized first. Giving a new birth name 
>> ??WM...
>
> Well, make it happen. Show, don't tell.
>
> ~ Tim
>

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[patrick295767 patrick295767]

You likely could mean... a rewrite might the easiest and much faster.

I think that only dwm on suckless is too little. It needs a new sort
of wm, visually like jwm, filliing the gap between tinywm and dwm.

Cheers!





2016-08-02 23:04 GMT+02:00 Timothy Rice :
> Hi Pat,
>
>> Sure that it needs a bit of improvements...
>
> 1. I am not sure what problem JWM is trying to solve.
> 2. I do not think "improvements" will make it suck less.
>
> Certainly there is a place in the world for JWM, just as there is a place
> in the world for Openbox, Awesome, even Gnome and KDE. I used Gnome back in
> the day before trying out XFCE, then Openbox, then Awesome, then XMonad,
> before settling on dwm. Everyone has to start at their own starting point.
>
> But just because there is a place for something in the world doesn't mean
> it is built to suck less.
>
> Do you think the JWM devs would be keen to strip out all the XML cruft and
> go the dwm route, putting configs in a C header? I believe that is the kind
> of improvement you would need to see before a suckless nomination would
> make sense.
>
>
> ~ Tim
>

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[patrick295767 patrick295767]

I believe than an alternative to dwm might be good. dwm is fine, but
an alternative could be useful.

Concerning the source, I knows those addtional libs... well, several
drawbacks to be solved.

jwm needs to be simplified and optimized first. Giving a new birth name ??WM...




2016-08-02 22:47 GMT+02:00 Martin Kühne :
> JWM is hosted on github already and that is definitely where it
> belongs. From there:
>
> To build JWM you will need a C compiler (gcc works), X11, and the
> "development headers" for X11 and Xlib. If available and not disabled
> at compile time, JWM will also use the following libraries:
>
> cairo and librsvg2 for SVG icons and backgrounds.
> fribidi for bi-directional text support.
> libjpeg for JPEG icons and backgrounds.
> libpng for PNG icons and backgrounds.
> libXext for the shape extension.
> libXrender for the render extension.
> libXmu for rounded corners.
> libXft for anti-aliased and true type fonts.
> libXinerama for multiple head support.
> libXpm for XPM icons and backgrounds.
>
> Also, from the file list it appears it uses autotools.
> You're both a troll and new here and neither a contributor to, nor
> even roughly familiar with the project you're pointing at.
>
> cheers!
> mar77i
>

Re: [dev] Wayland vs X11

[Mattias Andrée]

On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 22:54:43 +0200
Silvan Jegen  wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 10:16:06PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 22:08:08 +0200
> > Silvan Jegen  wrote:  
> > > Since Wayland is only a protocol, as long as both the
> > > client and the server follow it closely enough both
> > > the clients and the server will be happy. What is
> > > crucial is that the protocol is minimal and strictly
> > > defined however. I am still cautiously optimistic
> > > that this is and will be the case...  
> > 
> > It's not only about client-server interaction, it's
> > about how you for instance should capture input in a
> > compositor. You could use libinput, or a gazillion
> > other libs out there with different levels of device
> > support. I can already see the bug reports because this
> > and that joystick, touchpad, whatever does not work in
> > a specific compositor.  
> 
> The Wayland protocol deals with input as well so as long
> as the clients speak it, they are golden. libinput is
> supposed to make input handling uniform on all Wayland
> compositors and can also be used on X11. I am not sure
> whether Joysticks/gamepads are handled in it though.

They are. Side-note: libinput's documentation is horrible.
(It is far from along in this aspect in the category of
libraries for graphical environments (and audio).)

I'm not quite sure that the display server should be
responsible for joysticks  It feels like something
individual applications that use them should access
directly via for example libinput.

> 
> 
> > And even clients have to do their own
> > font-antialiasing. Sounds like a lot of fun! Please
> > stop repeating the propaganda spread on the web,
> > Wayland is not DoA without reason, and there is also a
> > reason why nobody uses it nowadays other than to play
> > around with it. It's a  
> 
> The rumors of its death are greatly exaggerated...
> Sailfish OS has been using Wayland from the start and

Keep in mind that Sailfish OS is not a desktop OS,
it requirements are limited.

> Fedora wants to make Wayland the default for their next
> release (I wouldn't count on it).

Haven't Fedora wanted that for a long time now?

> 
> 
> > horrible mess and the wayland devs expect us to boil
> > the ocean without any clear benefits at hand.  
> 
> Wayland is supposed to give us a "tear-free" desktop at
> least... :P
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Silvan
> 
> 



pgpEqsI4zCN1j.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[Timothy Rice]

Hi Pat,

> Sure that it needs a bit of improvements...

1. I am not sure what problem JWM is trying to solve.
2. I do not think "improvements" will make it suck less.

Certainly there is a place in the world for JWM, just as there is a place
in the world for Openbox, Awesome, even Gnome and KDE. I used Gnome back in
the day before trying out XFCE, then Openbox, then Awesome, then XMonad,
before settling on dwm. Everyone has to start at their own starting point.

But just because there is a place for something in the world doesn't mean
it is built to suck less.

Do you think the JWM devs would be keen to strip out all the XML cruft and
go the dwm route, putting configs in a C header? I believe that is the kind
of improvement you would need to see before a suckless nomination would
make sense.


~ Tim

Re: [dev] Wayland vs X11

[Silvan Jegen]

On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 10:16:06PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 22:08:08 +0200
> Silvan Jegen  wrote:
> > Since Wayland is only a protocol, as long as both the client and the
> > server follow it closely enough both the clients and the server will
> > be happy. What is crucial is that the protocol is minimal and strictly
> > defined however. I am still cautiously optimistic that this is and
> > will be the case...
> 
> It's not only about client-server interaction, it's about how you for
> instance should capture input in a compositor. You could use libinput,
> or a gazillion other libs out there with different levels of device
> support. I can already see the bug reports because this and that
> joystick, touchpad, whatever does not work in a specific compositor.

The Wayland protocol deals with input as well so as long as the clients
speak it, they are golden. libinput is supposed to make input handling
uniform on all Wayland compositors and can also be used on X11. I am
not sure whether Joysticks/gamepads are handled in it though.


> And even clients have to do their own font-antialiasing. Sounds like a
> lot of fun! Please stop repeating the propaganda spread on the web,
> Wayland is not DoA without reason, and there is also a reason why
> nobody uses it nowadays other than to play around with it. It's a

The rumors of its death are greatly exaggerated... Sailfish OS has been
using Wayland from the start and Fedora wants to make Wayland the default
for their next release (I wouldn't count on it).


> horrible mess and the wayland devs expect us to boil the ocean without
> any clear benefits at hand.

Wayland is supposed to give us a "tear-free" desktop at least... :P


Cheers,

Silvan

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[Martin Kühne]

JWM is hosted on github already and that is definitely where it
belongs. From there:

To build JWM you will need a C compiler (gcc works), X11, and the
"development headers" for X11 and Xlib. If available and not disabled
at compile time, JWM will also use the following libraries:

cairo and librsvg2 for SVG icons and backgrounds.
fribidi for bi-directional text support.
libjpeg for JPEG icons and backgrounds.
libpng for PNG icons and backgrounds.
libXext for the shape extension.
libXrender for the render extension.
libXmu for rounded corners.
libXft for anti-aliased and true type fonts.
libXinerama for multiple head support.
libXpm for XPM icons and backgrounds.

Also, from the file list it appears it uses autotools.
You're both a troll and new here and neither a contributor to, nor
even roughly familiar with the project you're pointing at.

cheers!
mar77i

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[patrick295767 patrick295767]

Sure that it needs a bit of improvements...

2016-08-02 22:41 GMT+02:00 FRIGN :
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 22:35:45 +0200
> patrick295767 patrick295767  wrote:
>
>> /*
>>   JWM v2.3.5 by Joe Wingbermuehle
>>   compiled options: confirm icons nls xbm
>> */
>>
>> My theme:
>>
>>
>>   FreeSans-9:bold
>>   4
>>   20
>>   
>>  white
>>  #70849d:#2e3a67
>>  black
>>  1.0
>>   
>>   
>>  #aa
>>  #808488:#303438
>>  black
>>  0.5:0.9:0.1
>>   
>>
>
> Yuck! XML config? No thanks!
>
> --
> FRIGN 
>

Re: [dev] JWM on website

[FRIGN]

On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 22:35:45 +0200
patrick295767 patrick295767  wrote:

> /*
>   JWM v2.3.5 by Joe Wingbermuehle
>   compiled options: confirm icons nls xbm
> */
> 
> My theme:
>
>
>   FreeSans-9:bold
>   4
>   20
>   
>  white
>  #70849d:#2e3a67
>  black
>  1.0
>   
>   
>  #aa
>  #808488:#303438
>  black
>  0.5:0.9:0.1
>   
>

Yuck! XML config? No thanks!

-- 
FRIGN 

Re: [dev] Wayland vs X11

[patrick295767 patrick295767]

I believe that we will have to strive to keep X11.

2016-08-02 20:33 GMT+02:00 Silvan Jegen :
> Heyho
>
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 06:27:49PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 18:04:20 +0200
>> patrick295767 patrick295767  wrote:
>>
>> Hey Patrick,
>>
>> > Do you believe that Wayland will replace X11 one day?;)
>>
>> this is a tough question to answer. If we are headed on the current
>> course, I think we will face even more difficult times in the future
>> with worse monocultures than we have today (systemd, Gnome, ...).
>>
>> > Besides, don't you believe that Ubuntu may have time to time some
>> > negative influence on Linux phylosophy?
>>
>> Is this a rhetorical question?
>>
>> > Quote:
>> > Display server expert Daniel Stone explains what is really happening
>> > with the future of graphical display protocols on Linux. So far as
>> > most Linux users are concerned, Wayland is the project that is
>> > eventually supposed to replace the X Window System (X).
>>
>> Here's the thing: Wayland really does not make a complete stack, it
>> merely is a very thin protocol which allows the talk between clients and
>> between client and compositor. Everything else (rendering, buffer
>> management, input management, ...) that used to be handled by X.org in
>> a reasonable manner is now pushed to each compositor. So if
>
> One can argue that having a simple protocol *is* the suckless part of
> Wayland (dont forget Xprint[0] :P). The Wayland protocol also does not
> allow for communication between clients directly[1] but only through
> the Wayland compositor.
>
> I see two main issues that stem from switching to Wayland.
>
> 1. With Wayland there will be no non-compositing desktop.
> 2. Since rendering is done client-side and there is no Xlib, it may be
>harder to get pixel on your screen if you don't want to use one of the
>big GUI libraries like Qt or GTK2/3/++/whatev.
>
> As a non-expert in this space I am not sure the Wayland future is looking
> that bleak though.
>
> Velox[2] does not look bloated to me and wayland-enabled st[3] is only
> barely larger than the current X11 version's git tip (though the wayland
> version depends on wld[4]).
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Silvan
>
>
> [0] ftp://www.x.org/pub/X11R6.8.1/doc/Xprint.7.html
> [1] https://wayland.freedesktop.org/architecture.html
> [2] https://github.com/michaelforney/velox
> [3] https://github.com/michaelforney/st
> [4] https://github.com/michaelforney/wld
>

[dev] JWM on website

[patrick295767 patrick295767]

Good evening,

I think that JWM could be made visible on the website of www.suckless.org.

Please check the code of jwm...

JWM is relatively light, and people like it very much jwm as much as
dwm. For jwm, only libx11-dev is necessary. JWM is fluid, it looks
nice. With xbindkeys it is a nice alternative wm. Jwm is very much
stable and leaner than openbox.

/*
  JWM v2.3.5 by Joe Wingbermuehle
  compiled options: confirm icons nls xbm
*/

My theme:
   
   
  FreeSans-9:bold
  4
  20
  
 white
 #70849d:#2e3a67
 black
 1.0
  
  
 #aa
 #808488:#303438
 black
 0.5:0.9:0.1
  
   


Best regards;
Pat;

Re: [dev] Wayland vs X11

[FRIGN]

On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 22:08:08 +0200
Silvan Jegen  wrote:

> As far as I can tell, the goal of the Wayland devs is to keep the
> required protocols to a minimum and graduate prooven protocol
> extensions to official Wayland ones. 

It sounds good on paper, but really turns out to be a horrible mess
in reality.
 
> So theoretically, as long as you implement the Wayland protocol (and
> it's assumptions) correctly, any compatible Wayland-speaking client
> should work just fine.

Yes, the clients are not the problem. We are talking about the
compositor here.

> Since Wayland is only a protocol, as long as both the client and the
> server follow it closely enough both the clients and the server will
> be happy. What is crucial is that the protocol is minimal and strictly
> defined however. I am still cautiously optimistic that this is and
> will be the case...

It's not only about client-server interaction, it's about how you for
instance should capture input in a compositor. You could use libinput,
or a gazillion other libs out there with different levels of device
support. I can already see the bug reports because this and that
joystick, touchpad, whatever does not work in a specific compositor.

And even clients have to do their own font-antialiasing. Sounds like a
lot of fun! Please stop repeating the propaganda spread on the web,
Wayland is not DoA without reason, and there is also a reason why
nobody uses it nowadays other than to play around with it. It's a
horrible mess and the wayland devs expect us to boil the ocean without
any clear benefits at hand.

Cheers

FRIGN

-- 
FRIGN 

Re: [dev] Wayland vs X11

[Silvan Jegen]

On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 08:41:57PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 20:33:39 +0200
> Silvan Jegen  wrote:
> 
> Hey Silvan,
> 
> > One can argue that having a simple protocol *is* the suckless part of
> > Wayland (dont forget Xprint[0] :P). The Wayland protocol also does not
> > allow for communication between clients directly[1] but only through
> > the Wayland compositor.
> 
> yeah, but omitting the rest is not suckless, it just turns everything
> into a big mess. You might say anything about X.org, but at least you
> can more or less rely on a set of features available to you, even if
> they are "default" XFree86 extensions.

As far as I can tell, the goal of the Wayland devs is to keep the
required protocols to a minimum and graduate prooven protocol extensions
to official Wayland ones. 

So theoretically, as long as you implement the Wayland protocol (and
it's assumptions) correctly, any compatible Wayland-speaking client
should work just fine.

> > I see two main issues that stem from switching to Wayland.
> > 1. With Wayland there will be no non-compositing desktop.
> 
> I don't see this aspect too critically. See how Wayland performs vs.
> X in limited environments[0].

I always assumed that having a compositing window manager has negative
performance impact but at least according to

https://blog.martin-graesslin.com/blog/2013/05/compositing-and-lightweight-desktops/

this could have been exactly due to X's XComposite extension which is
not needed in Weston.

 
> > 2. Since rendering is done client-side and there is no Xlib, it may be
> >harder to get pixel on your screen if you don't want to use one of
> > the big GUI libraries like Qt or GTK2/3/++/whatev.
> 
> Yeah, very good point. Also, clients cannot rely on compositor
> features, because each compositor can do things differently. There
> really is no simple way to write software and making it deliberately
> hard almost makes you believe its a GTK/Qt conspiracy of some sort.

Since Wayland is only a protocol, as long as both the client and the
server follow it closely enough both the clients and the server will
be happy. What is crucial is that the protocol is minimal and strictly
defined however. I am still cautiously optimistic that this is and will
be the case...


> > As a non-expert in this space I am not sure the Wayland future is
> > looking that bleak though.
> > Velox[2] does not look bloated to me and wayland-enabled st[3] is only
> > barely larger than the current X11 version's git tip (though the
> > wayland version depends on wld[4]).
> 
> How can you compare the two? You need a third-party library (wld) to
> get shit done. Just wait down the line how much of a fucking mess we
> are going to have!

In wayland-st, wld replaces XLib. I haven't worked with either of them
really so I can't say which one is worse but 'wld' is less than 8K so
it doesn't seem *that* bad.


Cheers,

Silvan

Re: [dev] Wayland vs X11

[hiro]

this has been discussed here often enough.
just discuss this bullshit with your hackernews friends next time.

Re: [dev] Wayland vs X11

[FRIGN]

On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 20:33:39 +0200
Silvan Jegen  wrote:

Hey Silvan,

> One can argue that having a simple protocol *is* the suckless part of
> Wayland (dont forget Xprint[0] :P). The Wayland protocol also does not
> allow for communication between clients directly[1] but only through
> the Wayland compositor.

yeah, but omitting the rest is not suckless, it just turns everything
into a big mess. You might say anything about X.org, but at least you
can more or less rely on a set of features available to you, even if
they are "default" XFree86 extensions.

> I see two main issues that stem from switching to Wayland.
> 1. With Wayland there will be no non-compositing desktop.

I don't see this aspect too critically. See how Wayland performs vs.
X in limited environments[0].

> 2. Since rendering is done client-side and there is no Xlib, it may be
>harder to get pixel on your screen if you don't want to use one of
> the big GUI libraries like Qt or GTK2/3/++/whatev.

Yeah, very good point. Also, clients cannot rely on compositor
features, because each compositor can do things differently. There
really is no simple way to write software and making it deliberately
hard almost makes you believe its a GTK/Qt conspiracy of some sort.

> As a non-expert in this space I am not sure the Wayland future is
> looking that bleak though.
> Velox[2] does not look bloated to me and wayland-enabled st[3] is only
> barely larger than the current X11 version's git tip (though the
> wayland version depends on wld[4]).

How can you compare the two? You need a third-party library (wld) to
get shit done. Just wait down the line how much of a fucking mess we
are going to have!

Cheers

FRIGN

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ux-WCpNvRFM

-- 
FRIGN 

Re: [dev] Wayland vs X11

[Silvan Jegen]

Heyho

On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 06:27:49PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 18:04:20 +0200
> patrick295767 patrick295767  wrote:
> 
> Hey Patrick,
> 
> > Do you believe that Wayland will replace X11 one day?;)
> 
> this is a tough question to answer. If we are headed on the current
> course, I think we will face even more difficult times in the future
> with worse monocultures than we have today (systemd, Gnome, ...).
> 
> > Besides, don't you believe that Ubuntu may have time to time some
> > negative influence on Linux phylosophy?
> 
> Is this a rhetorical question?
> 
> > Quote:
> > Display server expert Daniel Stone explains what is really happening
> > with the future of graphical display protocols on Linux. So far as
> > most Linux users are concerned, Wayland is the project that is
> > eventually supposed to replace the X Window System (X).
> 
> Here's the thing: Wayland really does not make a complete stack, it
> merely is a very thin protocol which allows the talk between clients and
> between client and compositor. Everything else (rendering, buffer
> management, input management, ...) that used to be handled by X.org in
> a reasonable manner is now pushed to each compositor. So if

One can argue that having a simple protocol *is* the suckless part of
Wayland (dont forget Xprint[0] :P). The Wayland protocol also does not
allow for communication between clients directly[1] but only through
the Wayland compositor.

I see two main issues that stem from switching to Wayland.

1. With Wayland there will be no non-compositing desktop.
2. Since rendering is done client-side and there is no Xlib, it may be
   harder to get pixel on your screen if you don't want to use one of the
   big GUI libraries like Qt or GTK2/3/++/whatev.

As a non-expert in this space I am not sure the Wayland future is looking
that bleak though.

Velox[2] does not look bloated to me and wayland-enabled st[3] is only
barely larger than the current X11 version's git tip (though the wayland
version depends on wld[4]).


Cheers,

Silvan


[0] ftp://www.x.org/pub/X11R6.8.1/doc/Xprint.7.html
[1] https://wayland.freedesktop.org/architecture.html
[2] https://github.com/michaelforney/velox
[3] https://github.com/michaelforney/st
[4] https://github.com/michaelforney/wld

Re: [dev] [st] [PATCH] Converted "font" string to "fonts" array

[Christoph Lohmann]

Greetings.

Thanks for your patch.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2016 19:39:23 +0200 Eric Pruitt  wrote:
> Modifies st to support user-defined fallback fonts specified in an
> array. This change also resolves an issue where fallback fonts were used
> in place of default fonts in an inconsistent manner which caused
> identical sets of text to sometimes use different fonts.

I  would  appreciate  it,  if  you upload the patch to the wiki. For now
there’s the bloated fontconfig dependency. When a suckless font  render‐
ing  library  is  there to replace it, your patch might be included. For
now it’s just yet another hack on top  of  the  ugliness  of  the  X.org
graphics stack.


Sincerely,

Christoph Lohmann

Re: [dev] Wayland vs X11

[FRIGN]

On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 18:04:20 +0200
patrick295767 patrick295767  wrote:

Hey Patrick,

> Do you believe that Wayland will replace X11 one day?;)

this is a tough question to answer. If we are headed on the current
course, I think we will face even more difficult times in the future
with worse monocultures than we have today (systemd, Gnome, ...).

> Besides, don't you believe that Ubuntu may have time to time some
> negative influence on Linux phylosophy?

Is this a rhetorical question?

> Quote:
> Display server expert Daniel Stone explains what is really happening
> with the future of graphical display protocols on Linux. So far as
> most Linux users are concerned, Wayland is the project that is
> eventually supposed to replace the X Window System (X).

Here's the thing: Wayland really does not make a complete stack, it
merely is a very thin protocol which allows the talk between clients and
between client and compositor. Everything else (rendering, buffer
management, input management, ...) that used to be handled by X.org in
a reasonable manner is now pushed to each compositor. So if
someone wants to write a wayland compositor, he has to keep all
this shit in mind and prepare to do a lot of work. dwm would be
a bloody behemoth, like any other wayland compositor out there.
The only alternative is developing a plugin for weston, which is the
reference wayland compositor. However, weston is a bloody filthy
stuffed pig, definitely not something I would want to work with.

Just criticism on wayland and the troubles of developing a compositor
are nipped in the bud by trolls claiming you should write a plugin,
which really misses the point for me.
If I was one of the wayland developers' father, I would send in my son
for a checkup if he suffers from anorexia or something, because wayland
really is a bloody thin protocol and they really are scared to even
offer the slightest ease for the API-users.
The best thing to happen to wayland is an initiative to really
standardize shit on top of it. I mean, Weston acts all advanced and
stuff but doesn't even get color management right.
If you want to improve this section of the Linux ecosystem, at least
get things right that Apple has been doing perfectly for over a decade.

Color management will become more and more important in the future, the
more people will use Linux for graphic design and photography. I can't
even imagine how much of a mess it will be if every single compositor
has to think of ways for color management, handle joysticks, don't fuck
things up and so on. It's a huge mess!

Cheers

FRIGN

-- 
FRIGN 

Re: [dev] Wayland vs X11

[Mattias Andrée]

On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 18:04:20 +0200
patrick295767 patrick295767  wrote:

> Hi,

Ahoy!

> 
> Do you believe that Wayland will replace X11 one
> day?;)

Yes — and it will be horrible.

The worst part of Wayland it encourages you
to write your own display server with all of
features in one single process. X11 is really
bad, but at least there are not too many
implementations of it, and therefor the
implementations are less shitty.

A display server protocol should to encourage
you to implement the display server in multiple
processed that can be swap out whilst running,
and extending the functionality by add servers
that listens to or modifies messages between
servers.

The display server project all maintain is set
of reference implementations. Anyone that wants
to change the a part of the display server can
than write a replacement for a specific server.

In Wayland, if you want to add new functionality
or changing the functionality, you must do so
for all implementations of Wayland. If someone
else wants do change some other thing, she must
do some in all implementations, including all
duplicates you made. Therefor, Wayland does not
really allow you to add or change functionality.
You must write your own compositor that behaves
exactly as you want it to, and this includes
the window manager, a part that is not built
into X11 display servers.

> 
> Besides, don't you believe that Ubuntu may have time to
> time some negative influence on Linux phylosophy?

Not sure I'm parsing your question correctly,
but I don't see Ubuntu damaging the philosophy
more than (almost) any other distribution.
The most detrimental thing to the philosophy
are programs written to be GUI programs rather
than command line programs with GUI frontends.

> 
> Quote:
> Display server expert Daniel Stone explains what is
> really happening with the future of graphical display
> protocols on Linux. So far as most Linux users are
> concerned, Wayland is the project that is eventually
> supposed to replace the X Window System (X). by Bruce
> Byfield
> 
> Best regards,
> Pat
> 



pgp8V1xenilWQ.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[dev] Wayland vs X11

[patrick295767 patrick295767]

Hi,

Do you believe that Wayland will replace X11 one day?;)

Besides, don't you believe that Ubuntu may have time to time some
negative influence on Linux phylosophy?

Quote:
Display server expert Daniel Stone explains what is really happening
with the future of graphical display protocols on Linux. So far as
most Linux users are concerned, Wayland is the project that is
eventually supposed to replace the X Window System (X).
by Bruce Byfield

Best regards,
Pat