search

mpsq / arewewaylandyet

Sources for https://arewewaylandyet.com
https://arewewaylandyet.com
MIT License
269 stars 57 forks source link

Are we EWMH yet? #29

Open gioele opened 3 years ago

gioele commented 3 years ago

Instead of showing application replacements, it would be more meaningful to compare the state of "possible functionalities" offered by the Wayland protocols and those offered by X11 + EWMH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Window_Manager_Hints.

Many complaints about "Wayland cannot do X" are instead complaints about "there is no Wayland protocol to do X" or "Not all compositors implement protocol X".

EWMHs are the X11 equivalent of Wayland's protocols. You can focus a window via xdotool in X11 only thanks to EWMH. If you cannot programmatically focus a certain window with ydotool is not because the code is missing in ydotool, but because there is no protocol that composers can use to expose that functionality.

Comparing existing Wayland protocols (and support in major compositors) with EWMH would reveal which functionalities are still needed to achieve functional parity.

mpsq commented 3 years ago

Thank you for your comment, this is very valuable feedback. Please check the answer I posted on #27.

To elaborate on the matter, I registered areweewmhyet.com and arewenetwmyet.com (EWMH being equivalent to NetWM, according to Wikipedia, the latter seems easier to remember/use) and I am planning on writing a website that could be used as a formal reference to what Wayland supports and what it does not. This would most likely be done according to your advice. I would like to keep arewewaylandyet.com as "provocative" Wayland PR and add a link to the formal one. I think there is value in both. Let me know what you think.

gioele commented 3 years ago

To elaborate on the matter, I registered areweewmhyet.com and arewenetwmyet.com

Pleasantly unexpected. :)

I agree that arewewaylandyet.com is a provocative (in a good way) name and it should be the go-to website.

If you want to create something more structured, you can take inspiration from https://mesamatrix.net/. It provides an simple yet precise overview of which Mesa drivers have reached which level of OpenGL support and is now extending into Vulkan.

mpsq commented 3 years ago

Mesamatrix is really nice, thanks for the link, I will definitely use it as inspiration!

hexchain commented 3 years ago

Here is another related reference: https://caniuse.com

It would be really cool to have a site that collects all known Wayland protocols (standard and vendor extensions) and lists if any compositor supports a protocol. Currently, the only way to check for this is to dig issue trackers or sometimes source code.

akvadrako commented 3 years ago

Here is another related reference: https://caniuse.com

It would be really cool to have a site that collects all known Wayland protocols (standard and vendor extensions) and lists if any compositor supports a protocol. Currently, the only way to check for this is to dig issue trackers or sometimes source code.

I'm thinking to do something like this. A list of wayland protocols and what supports them. I guess it would be better to make this a separate project and not part of this repo?

mpsq commented 3 years ago

I did not give up on this just yet, finding the right approach is the tricky bit, mapping Xorg features to what Wayland can do does not always make sense. Doing this via listing Wayland protocols seem to be a good idea to me. I may have a try at it and see what I can get, I would happily share this and host it in this repo ;)

wiki-me commented 3 years ago

Thank you for your comment, this is very valuable feedback. Please check the answer I posted on #27.

To elaborate on the matter, I registered areweewmhyet.com and arewenetwmyet.com (EWMH being equivalent to NetWM, according to Wikipedia, the latter seems easier to remember/use) and I am planning on writing a website that could be used as a formal reference to what Wayland supports and what it does not. This would most likely be done according to your advice. I would like to keep arewewaylandyet.com as "provocative" Wayland PR and add a link to the formal one. I think there is value in both. Let me know what you think.

I think if you can afford it (You might even be able to crowd fund it on Rysolv or some other website) I always thought "waylandexplained" would be a good domain name for that sort of thing (that could also include the section about missconception or arguments agains wayland and their counter arguments).

asdf8dfafjk commented 1 year ago

arewenetwmyet.com doesn't seem up? Thank you for this btw, I wish the whole NET::WM thing were easily approachable when I started dabbling with X11 windows