Wayland

[Moonchild]

Off-topic:

An LLM is definitely fallible, but the information is based upon something. I thought it was a well reasoned analysis.

Let me just retort with this gem I received the other day:

tempFileForShare_20250222-002415.jpg

Definitely based upon something. Decently reasoned too - and absolutely bogus.

[FixedWing]

Off-topic:
Maybe you're just using the wrong LLM?

Off-topic:
I was going to leave this alone, but you guys are all having your fun so I will too.

I think it all depends. If depends on how the information is presented and used. Before using something, one has to have a basic understanding of what they're looking at. They need to know that 7 * 7 is not 48,452,849,342. Before presenting the info, one also needs to credit it so that the reader can evaluate the info for themselves.

In this case, the info passed the sniff test. ChatGPT gave a pretty good analysis at how it arrived at it's estimates and an estimate was all that was asked of it. I also credited it to ChatGPT so that everyone could see the source. I didn't just say that Wayland has XX% of the desktop market and leave it at that.

LLM's are tools. But like all tools, they can be both used and misused. I find them to be incredible time savers. But they are fallible.

Stephen

Sonnet of the Beehive PC

When first my faithful Compaq whirred to life,
Its fans sang soft, a gentle, steady breeze.
But soon there came a buzzing, sharp and rife —
A hum of wings, a hive of restless bees.

The ports were clogged with honey’s golden flow,
Sweet nectar dripped from drives long left unused.
The RAM slots housed a swarm’s industrious glow,
And every key was stuck, each stroke refused.

Oh BIOS, burdened with this honeyed fate,
Your beep codes drowned by nature’s fierce embrace.
My mouse is stung, my screen vibrates in hate,
And worker drones have claimed the power space.

Alas, my Compaq’s now a buzzing tomb —
A hive of bytes and bees, and certain doom.

[athenian200]

I don't feel Wayland support is necessary at this time because XWayland exists and will be supported for the foreseeable future. However, if I were to put work into this, I would be doing it for UXP as a whole, not just for Epyrus.

The changes needed to add Wayland support would definitely hurt backwards compatibility on Linux a lot, though. That's just the nature of the beast. Which is important because a lot of Epyrus users on Linux are a bit old-school, tending to stick with the oldest Linux versions they can, and are slow to upgrade, with any attempt to increase the system requirements being met with resistance.

Also, I think that adopting Wayland early wouldn't pay off, and has resulted in a lot of half-busted implementations that are slow to add back missing functionality the Xorg version had when others have done it, including Mozilla. In most cases they've just found ways to do without it and are determined most of what was lost will never be added back, they don't want to do the work. But right now, they're scrambling right now to add in a lot of missing functionality into Wayland as a protocol now that it's seriously being pushed, and I'd rather wait until Wayland is widely used and mature before even considering doing this.

So far, Wayland support is one of those things that I am mostly not focused on because there are far more pressing things to do, and it doesn't seem to have any immediate gains, especially for Epyrus since it's just a mail client and doesn't do a lot of graphical rendering. As a result, there's not much of a speedup to be gained by rendering the GUI to a native Wayland surface over an XWayland one, especially since it's an old-school GUI designed around placement of dialog boxes in specific places rather than Mozilla's more modern one that relies a lot on tabs and such to take the place of dialog boxes.

[FixedWing]

I don't feel Wayland support is necessary at this time because...

All very logical. If I were in your shoes, I would come to the same conclusion.

Stephen

[Navigator]

Off-topic:

Let me just retort with this gem I received the other day:

[frostknight]

Let me just retort with this gem I received the other day:

tempFileForShare_20250222-002415.jpg

Definitely based upon something. Decently reasoned too - and absolutely bogus.

Where the hell did you find this?

I was dumbfounded for a minute by how insane this is.

Thanks for the amusement though!

[Eduardolucas1]

You guys are obviously thinking more broadly than just Epyrus.

I get it, it would be difficult. And from my perspective, Epyrus does at least work, even if it requires Xwayland.

But a second question, how necessary is it, even if it is difficult? At this point, I think it's fair to say that most Linux systems running web browsers today are running Wayland. So perhaps this is inevitable. The only question being, when?

Stephen

Well, with all due respect to your opinion, i would consider some things:

1- "Unix-like" users of UXP apps are not necessarily on linux. I am in illumos, Tribblix OmniOS flavour, and there is no need of GTK4 or Wayland. Performance would not be faster. There are likely decades-old low level optimizations on Solaris, because X11 is much faster on tribblix than on any lightweight linux distro. If this shift ever happened and a Wayland protocol implementation was ported to illumos, it is still is linux-centric so it would hurt performance for those of us who are in System V or BSD and not in "unix-like". I use zero GTK4 outside of a lightweight debian vm/zone inside the system.

2- X11 is likely not going to be overcome by wayland, which means linux distros will be forced to keep XWayland.

3- X11 is in active development.

4- A massive userbase of uxp are on Windows and Mac, so it could prove not worthwhile, particularly GTK4 work too. The devs in previous messages emphasized the work is hard, which means i likely have a point.

So i disagree in the inevitability and in the necessity of the question of time.

I am opposed to it as a user because it would take time from development that is crucial, and that would affect pale moon, considering the chrome monopoly and the fact standards and stuff come too often new and are centered on chrome, and the pale moon dev team is small compared to a massive company.

[frostknight]

To be honest, it would be more useful of linux developers instead of switching to wayland, made xorg more like xenocara except done from a linux perspective.

Another words, veil and pledge protcols that are compatible with linux instead of BSD.

I don't know why someone didn't suggest this instead of wayland.

[vannilla]

I don't know why someone didn't suggest this instead of wayland.

The real "issue" raised by Wayland proponents is the protocol itself, not the implementation.
Well, not really the protocol itself but rather some unfortunate consequences, which are only partially solved by Wayland at the cost of other new issues, so veil, pledge, sandboxes and the like wouldn't have done much to stop the movement, maybe delay it at most.

[FixedWing]

Well, with all due respect to your opinion....

As I wrote above, I'm already convinced. Wayland doesn't make sense. It would be a lot of work for very little reward. Palemoon is a nitch program and this wouldn't be what most of it's users want. I never intended to say that Wayland would fully displace X, and it obviously isn't going to for the nitch community. And Xwayland does the job for those who are using Wayland.

Stephen

[frostknight]

The real "issue" raised by Wayland proponents is the protocol itself, not the implementation.
Well, not really the protocol itself but rather some unfortunate consequences, which are only partially solved by Wayland at the cost of other new issues, so veil, pledge, sandboxes and the like wouldn't have done much to stop the movement, maybe delay it at most.

That's sad, to hear...

Wayland isnt the answer though.

Crazy shit man...