vrighter

joined 1 year ago
[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 2 months ago (4 children)

it's not becoming boomers. It's about rarely meeting one who knows that, for example, wifi is not the internet. I'm not asking for detailed tech knowledge. But getting a blank face if asked something as simple as "where did you save the file?" or replying with "in the gallery/google photos" means you are not tech savvy. these are the absolute basics.

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 72 points 2 months ago (9 children)

but gen z is not tech savvy. They can use a browser. and watch youtube. They never advance past that stage

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

except that it can, and regularly does, regurgitate copyrighted works verbatim.

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

but in games, triple buffering is the norm

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 2 months ago

that's just how the code is rendered. There's still all the usual constructs

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 24 points 3 months ago (1 children)

doesn't have to be a cube

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

new features are fine. But first and foremost, is not breaking existing apps, or committing to porting them yourself. So if desktop apps need to do xyz, then wayland needs to support doing xyz. period. No 'but that's insecure', no 'but why would you want to do that' (for setting a window icon or positioning the window ffs). Support existing applications. I'm not saying it should support x protocols. But it should offer replacement features for existing apps to be ported to. And it needs to be wayland. Because it's already the case that certain functionality is implemented for gnome, or kde, with incompatible apis, to fill in the void left by wayland itself. If I want an app to work as I want it, consistently, everywhere? X, with all its warts, is my only choice.

As an example, the accessibility protocols. They're good to have. Except they're opt-in. So incompatible with existing apps. Some apps need to restrict access. They could declare that and make use of additional functionality. But no, choose a default that break everything instead.

The argument that apps just need to be ported also assumes the app is still maintained. Are you willing to do the work yourself if not? Probably not. You're just the one looking down on people like me for wanting functionality in existing apps to be "not literally impossible to implement"

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I do not care about security risks. If something made its way onto my system, I've already lost. I just want one implementation of something that gets the job done. And by "gets the job done" I mean it allows us to do things better, not disallow us from even having the option to do things because someone had their tinfoil hat on too tight. Ffs you can't even set your window icon. I don't care if kde has implemented that feature. If I use that, I'd be supporting kde, not wayland. It won't work on other des and so the maintenance burden increases drastically.

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de -2 points 3 months ago

"almost" being the key word there.

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

xwayland cannot ever be removed, because wayland, by design, will not have enough functionality to replace it. So one can either support X desktop environments with their own individual bugs, or one X implementation that has the needed features and works consistently for all DEs

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)

because for most of them, there is nothing to port them to. Wayland is incomplete... by design.

view more: ‹ prev next ›