/tech/ - Technology★

install wlroots

install xorg

>>1059479

>recommending bloat

lol no.

>>1059480

wayland is garbage by design

it will never catch on

>>1059478

Any good guides on using it?

>>1059482

you can find projects using wlroots here https://github.com/swaywm/wlroots/wiki/Projects-which-use-wlroots

There is also a simular demo wm like weston called rooston.

right now you just got to dive through repo wikis.

If it's not in the wiki try looking in the issue tracker

>>1059484

Thanks. Any light wayland compositor with support for the keep on top functionality you'd recommend?

>>1059481

>wayland is garbage by design

>it will never catch on

It has actually caught on already - the next version of (((Debian))) comes with wayland by default and GNOME supporting it.

And if wayland is a garbage by design, then xorg is a corpse.

>>1059487

oh wow Debian is supporting it. Fuck me it must be good.

>>1059481

corroborate your argument

>>1059487

>make dumbshit "replacement" that doesn't do 30% of what the original did

>spam "compatibility" patches to all kinds of portable projects

>switch out to your "replacement"

>wooow it's so popular look all of these things are using it under the hood

Standard FDO fare, now kill yourself.

>>1059515

>have thing that works and is really portable

>screetch when people use that portability

Sure sounds like opensors to me

>>1059519

The point is that it says nothing about the popularity of Wayland because all these applications didn't choose to use it, they just chose GTK or SDL or whatever.

>>1059521

And why did those projects decide to use a framework that is portable and easily crossplatform?

Your argument is retarded.

>>1059515

Did you know that the purpose of Wayland is to provide a way of displaying GUI windows without the unused baggage that comes along with X11? X11 demands many kinds of functionality that people do not use in actual practice today so Wayland exists to remove that needless baggage. Did you know that X11 is not incompatible with Wayland? Legacy X11 applications can work on Wayland using the Weston-X11 server.

>>1059528

You are definitely retarded if you think it's because they loved Wayland so much.

>>1059533

Yeah, things like network functionality which nobody uses In The Real World™, the number one bullshitting phrase. Everything that's not the FDO faggots' phones or desktops simply doesn't exist, as we have learned very well by now. And if you tell me to use a virtual desktop you can be glad I don't know where you live. Or what about the retardation that is client-side decorations?

>>1059536

You can still use your precious X11 with Wayland. X11 is not going away in the near future. I am running Weston/Wayland right now on a laptop that has 8GB RAM. I have an X11 client of Firefox running on my desktop machine that has 20GB RAM and the server is running on my laptop with Weston. Wayland didn't come to remove X11 from existance. Wayland came because of the many people who have no need of X11 functionality.

>>1059537

>You can still use your precious X11 with Wayland.

I can also just not use Wayland. What, every time some retard makes an "improvement" I have to "upgrade", no questions asked?

>X11 is not going away in the near future.

>Wayland didn't come to remove X11 from existance.

Literally every sentence by you and other Wayland shills suggests otherwise. It wouldn't be the first time FDO kills something useful either.

>Wayland came because of the many people who have no need of X11 functionality.

Another subtle lie where you make it sound like the users demanded it or something. The users give exactly zero shits. Most developers also give exactly zero shits, unless some waylandtard comes and tells them to implement window decorations for the sake of "progress".

>>1059538

Your arguments are strawmen arguments. You say that purpose of the developers developing Wayland is to kill the X11 protocol. This is false.

>>1059539

If it's a strawman, you'd agree that you can simply not update and the users didn't demand anything. Then why exactly do you always write like a PR department under the implicit assumption that everyone has to upgrade? It's never "so don't use it" or "this doesn't matter to you", it's always "Wayland supports that, install it today".

>>1059475 (OP)

Weston is just a reference compositor, it's not intended to be used.

You could use Kwin Wayland or Sway...

>>1059848

Weston is indeed the reference compositor and it is intended to be practical for normal use. It's just like X.org which is the reference X11 implementation and it is also intended for practical normal use.

Does wayland have dependencies on any other FDO garbage?

>>1059880

>Does wayland have dependencies on any other FDO garbage?

I didn't find anything about dependencies on https://wayland.freedesktop.org/ but something like this in the README file

<Building the wayland libraries is fairly simple, aside from libffi,

<they don't have many dependencies

But found following dependencies in the package definition of wayland for Guix package manager, but some of them are just scheme variables inside Guix, for example "expat" is a license var:

(native-inputs
     `(("doxygen" ,doxygen)
       ("graphviz" ,graphviz)
       ("pkg-config" ,pkg-config)
       ("xmlto" ,xmlto)
       ("xsltproc" ,libxslt)))
    (inputs
     `(("docbook-xml" ,docbook-xml)
       ("docbook-xsl" ,docbook-xsl)
       ("expat" ,expat)
       ("libffi" ,libffi)
       ("libxml2" ,libxml2))) ; for XML_CATALOG_FILES

Guess it works without systemd, pulseaudio, dbus shit, so I'm in. If someone finds complete list of wayland's dependencies, please let me know.

>>1059880

>>1060199

wayland is literally just a xml document of protocals.

any dependencies are a result of the compositor, example compostitors would be wlroots and wlc, everything really depends on how someone wishes to implement it.

It's kinda like NetWM in that way, i don't see openbox/fluxbox taking dependencies on freedesktop shit like systemd ever.

>>1059541

>>1059539

>>1059538

The entire point of Wayland is to kill X11 some day by making everything migrate to it.

X11 is so shit it's developers just want it to die already. Everything your applications do with X11 is just a workaround to get the "window" image from the toolkit (GTK/Qt/whatever you use) to the window manager. X11 adds lots of time by discussing all kinds of bullshit X11 extensions with the program/toolkit when it actualy just wants to send the image to the screen.

>The users give exactly zero shits.

You do. It's the reason X11 is so unreactive(updates are slow) and your applications take so long to start up.

>>1059536

>network functionality

You mean sending the image X11 recieved from the tookit to somewhere else, badly compressed?

You can do that with a VNC and the usage scenario for what you claim is important is just not there.

>>1060214

>wayland is literally just a xml document

wrong XML is bloat

>>1060225

>it's not xml doc even though it is but i say it isn't because i think it's bloat

fair arguement i also reject reality, gravity and sanitation is a needless and bloated part of life.

>>1060224

>being a voice of reseaon

Please leave, your too logical to be on /tech/

>>1059515

You sound like a unicucks weenie to me LOL.

>>1060224

Wayland is useless. X11 is useful and great. Discussing extension matters with programs is a great way to just call them instead of remaking them or whatever. Besides, since X11 is so old, it is coded in the old, true and efficient ways, instead of the new (((sjwized))) and (((bloated))) ones.

>Besides, since X11 is so old, it is coded in the old, true and efficient ways

I can tell that you've never done any programming with the X11 protocol before. This makes nothing but a LARPer.

>>1060236

>true and efficient ways

Ah yes, that's why it requires 100+ round trips to render literally nothing.

>>1060224

Oh look, it's the usual FDO "we already sabotaged it so it's okay if we kill it" spiel. Gee, if toolkits send bitmaps over the wire for antialiased fonts (yes, really), then clearly networking is useless. Figures that Waylandtards think everything uses a toolkit though, explains the client-side decoration retardation.

>just use VNC lol

You have

(a) never used VNC

(b) never used network transparency

Maybe both. Otherwise you wouldn't peddle this dogshit as a replacement.

>>1060321

A benchmark of what? Did you quote the wrong post?

>>1060313

Wayland was never intended to be an X11 replacement. This is because it was never designed to do what X11. The reason why this is is because X11 will continue as it has always been doing. It's not going away.

>>1059475 (OP)

install Vista

>>1059475 (OP)

by knowing C

>>1059515

X11 is unix bigotry, checkmate Cnile

>>1059536

>Yeah, things like network functionality which nobody uses In The Real World

Yes. ssh and vnc. No one uses X in actual practice because X's network is basically just a shitty vnc without compression and long waiting times to fetch window events.

>>1060325

>post making bullshit claims about VNC and X networking capabilities* it's not transparent it's capable

>tries to cop out with sed bullshit by claiming "lol u never even useeeeeeed it"

Please, show me the difference.

>>1064469

>what is the difference between running something in a virtual desktop and a program that controls just like a normal application but is executed elsewhere

Mongoloid.