I’m currently writing an article on the subject, and want to properly represent people’s views.

  • Markaos@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 day ago

    The biggest drawback of not providing any SSDs even as a fallback is obviously… what if the app just doesn’t draw CSDs?

    Wayland requires apps to be able to draw CSDs, so that’s just a broken app. SSDs are optional extension. So the app should either use X11 (and rely on Xwayland to provide the decorations), or implement Wayland properly.

    • yukijoou@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      24 hours ago

      so that’s just a broken app

      technically, yes. but at the end of the day, in the real world, that app would work fine on ~all but ~1 desktop compositor

      wayland doesn’t require SSDs, because it’s not just meant for desktop computing. in the context of desktop computing, it’s been a standard for decades now to have a title bar on a window, so it does make sense that apps would assume they can get one without having their own drawing code or relying on a third-party library!

    • Oinks@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      That’s true from a technical perspective. But in reality devs (especially ones who aren’t making “Linux apps” but are doing things like porting a previously Windows-only game to Linux) will occasionally ship a broken Wayland client. The compositor could then still give that a basic titlebar with window buttons like KDE and Cosmic do, or alternatively it can refuse to do it and make the novice user annoyed at the system as a whole.

      I’m not really convinced that requiring all Wayland clients to draw their own decorations was the correct decision in the first place, but even if we accept it, I think there’s still a convincing case for fallback SSDs.