dudemanguy.github.io
WAYLAND SHILLS BTFO
Michael Sanchez
Other urls found in this thread:
archlinux.org
aur.archlinux.org
twitter.com
Jason Peterson
First he fixed the thumbnails now's his fixing wayland, what a dude man guy
Blake Martin
>Pages and pages of debunked lies
Not this shit again
Blake Diaz
Prepare for hundreds of posts of cope from waytards.
John Edwards
he never fixed the thumbnails he made a broken patch and then abandoned it
Chase King
The influence of uriel and the suckless gang on linux devs as a whole has been highly destructive. Simplicity in development is pro-programmer and anti-user. A UNIX user must write a 100 line shell script, or an even worse bashit script if he dare be on gnu/shit, to do what a systemd user can do in a 10 line .ini. However the systemd developer must contend with a massive workload. Wayland seems to be taking a more unixy path, albeit with morons at the wheel. Fuck users, and fuck developers other than the ones in charge. String together 10 different programs in a shell command if you want that done, it’s not gonna be in the master branch!
Josiah Morgan
wayland is LITERALLY made by trannies
Asher Hughes
Grayson Carter
>gtk3
not up to date
Jason Bennett
still better than what gnometards did in 16 years
not surprising they're the ones most closely associated to broken shit that wayland is
Jose Bennett
The problem is that if you want to make a monolithic display server like Xorg without all the design issues of Xorg, you have to include the compositor and scenegraph and renderer and window manager and all the configuration and settings management in the server. GNOME and KDE and all the other obscure tiling wms will basically never agree on this.
Hudson Howard
>this broken useless shit done poorly in 5 minutes is still better than this other broken useless shit done in 16 years
no
Hunter Smith
It should have been basically just "xorg but a new protocol" in terms of implementation. They should have come up with some big "desktop" display server based on libwayland which all the typical desktop stuff you need supported. Then GNOME/KDE/etc. wouldn't have had to make everything from scratch but instead they could have just used that. The other benefit would be that there would still be the server + WM separation in wayland like there is in xorg. In wayland, it makes it all one process which is, of course, less modular.
Grayson Wright
>It should have been basically just "xorg but a new protocol" in terms of implementation.
That is what it was started as
>They should have come up with some big "desktop" display server based on libwayland which all the typical desktop stuff you need supported
Weston was supposed to be that but GNOME and KDE didn't want to use it, they wanted to write their own
>The other benefit would be that there would still be the server + WM separation in wayland like there is in xorg.
No that wouldn't have happened, it would just be one mega window manager that they each configure
>In wayland, it makes it all one process which is, of course, less modular.
No not really, weston supported plugins for modularity, all the other implementations also more or less have their own plugin systems
Cooper Rogers
That wouldn't create enough jobs though, would it?
Alexander Perez
Nobody wanted to use weston because it's a piece of shit for desktop.
Grayson Young
It would have been better if GNOME and KDE contributed to it and improved it for their purposes, but they saw no reason to do that
Nathan Green
Opportunity is in the wayland threads
Jose Watson
There is no opportunity on Any Forums Any Forums. You will find only complainers, no one here will contribute a single line of code to any projects
Grayson Baker
>The influence of uriel and the suckless gang on linux devs as a whole has been highly destructive.
I have been saying this for years.
"Minimalist" and Unix cult groups are useful idiots at best and controlled opposition at worst. They have basically tainted the free software world with compatible, but orthogonal ideas such as extreme minimalism, "Unix philosophy", "simplicity", and so on.
Since they know a little more than nothing and they are extremely loud and arrogant, complete newbies who come across them are easily impressed and start believing that free software is about making all this minimal unusable shit, making snarky vague remarks and rejecting basic conveniences in name of an empty ideal with no real goal in mind.
Free software was never about any of this shit. It was always a movement about personal freedom and it was never meant to dictate how software should be developed on a technical level. In particular, it never claimed that the whole world is supposedly in a race to clone a particular operating system from the 70s.
In fact, the proliferation of these groups greatly contributes to gratuitous hostility in technical discussions, where people are often trying to merely "win" an argument instead of working out an actual feasible solution for a given problem and implementing it. They may even claim that they "hate the drame", but deep down they love it. After all, why would they bother in the first place if they didn't?
Jayden Barnes
"Free software" is an equally cancerous movement based on forcing communist politics on businesses, it's just as much to blame. Free software is a cult group for useful idiots trying to "win" arguments by pushing politics instead of working on an actual feasible solution.