I think this is ine of the pieces that is needed for Linux to be more mainstream (emphasis on more). Very exciting!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEPHonestly not a big fan of Rust.

It makes writing code ridiculously complicated, everything needs awkwardly added function calls (want a variable? Here you go "variable.wrap().unwrap().rewrap().is_this_safe()?.unwrap_or_else(|..| yes_no?).expect('oh no!') ") and just leads to code that is practically unintelligible unless you understand everything about Rust.
I once couldn't stop laughing when I made a string copy, it's like trying to thread a needle, but with both hands tied behind your back to make sure you won't accidentally poke yourself.

However, its modularity and concurrency safety while maintaining C-like speed is indeed quite well suited to a project like that.
Can't say I blame them.

Oh, and the error messages in Rust are pure magic, very helpful compiler.

That's not how you write actual Rust code though: most of the time, you use constructions like `let Ok(var) = ` or variable?. The sbippet you showed looks like you haven't really looked at how to write actual Rust and just tried to write C in Rust which doesn't work. I also used to write Rust like that, but when I watched this video [External Link] it clicked a lot more. In other words, Rust seems more messy at first but it has has a lot of ways to make code more readable. And yes, it does take longer to get used to, I struggled at the beginnijg as well. It is a trade-off: Rust surfaces complexity in syntax, while others hide it. This is why Rust can be so fast, secure and stable. The errors you need to handle in Rust are also ones that can happen in other languages, they just hide that complexity and crash when something like that happens. These are languages like C or Python. There's a place for both, but Rust is a really good language to use for fundamental libraries like Gstreamer because of these properties.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I don't think these pricing changes are very expensive. Keep in mind that the main alternative is Unity, which charges 1877 dollars per seat. Meanwhile W4 charges 800 dollars to port all your games with bug handling and the legal stuff taken care of. I can think this is not an unnecessary luxury with console companies, as I imagine their SDKs/rules to be quite finicky to get right. As for the Defold situation: they crucially do not guarantee bug fixes and/or legal help. I think 800 dollars is definitely worth it to have a guarantee that your game will keep working on all platforms, also from a sustainability standpoint.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Thank you Liam and the team at GoL for the outstanding Linux journalism you do! The community is the cherry on top:grin:. Happy holidays and a happy new year everyone!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: 14RHEL distributions have got to be 95% headless (complete guess), so how big is this particular Wayland announcement anyway?

Red Hat is a major driving force behind Xorg maintainance. By announcing that Xorg will be dropped in RHEL 10. Red Hat also signals that they won't work on it anymore when RHEL 9 reaches EOL. When that happens, Xorg is pretty much abandonware.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: tohur

Quoting: reaperx7I love how Red Hat loves to push (force) people to buggy and incomplete software touting it as "stable" when the truth is far from reality.

Wayland is nice, but the fact that every compositor does everything inconsistent with each other, and often conflicts with how Xorg/XWayland does things, with pretty much everything the original developers intend, pretty much leave me saying "this isn't a good idea".

Honestly, nothing was wrong with Xorg, in my opinion. It works as intended like Windows GDI+. Yes there were some security flaws, but really, what was wrong with Xorg? I honestly see Wayland as a solution in search of a problem, not the other way around. If there was consistency with the compositors this wouldn't be a problem, but Plasma has their own problems, Gnome wants to be the rebellious child, Enlightenment is their own thing, Weston is sitting in the corner rocking back and forth thinking its a tea pot, and God knows what else the rest are doing running around the house aimlessly, but nothing is consistent while Xorg is sitting at the table, well behaved and saying "Oh so I'm not that important anymore? Have fun with the miscreants!" as it sits it's tea and reads the newspaper.

If you think Xorg is well "behaved" and not an issue you do not live in reality.. xorg is a utter mess and needs to go. frankly since swapping to Plasma wayland my PC performs much better

In my mind, the only thing Xorg needed fixing on was a better / more supported way to not run as root. Outside of that, they did all the work to make it modular during the development from XFree86. The problem is that people don't like maintaining old stuff, and want to play with new toys. That's all Wayland is. It'll be a new toy, until it isn't, then someone else will declare that it's crap and no one should be using it and then we'll be in the exact same boat as before...

There are definitely things that Wayland does okay, but nothing they do that is special over X11, and end up still needing compatibility layer to X11...

Performance wise, I notice very little difference between Xorg / Wayland. Like somethings feel a little smoother, other things feel slower. I definitely notice things just not working right in Wayland though. Weirdly, I had an issue where the Synology Drive app didn't want to work in Xorg, but would in Wayland... after a reboot, it was fine though.

I think that isn't true. The reason we need something new is simple: Xorg was released in 2004. Pretty much everything is different now and with software, once it starts doing things that weren't concievable when it was designed, things start falling apart. "Modularity" isn't a checkbox, it is a relative thing. What a module was supposed to be was also thought up in 2004, so that is also inadequate. In 204, screens were 480p, screensharing did not exist, security was not really a designconsideration, VR was still science fiction and Linux desktop Linux was still very obscure. Stating that creating something new was just because people wanted something new is not really fair IMO.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: tohur

Quoting: reaperx7I love how Red Hat loves to push (force) people to buggy and incomplete software touting it as "stable" when the truth is far from reality.

Wayland is nice, but the fact that every compositor does everything inconsistent with each other, and often conflicts with how Xorg/XWayland does things, with pretty much everything the original developers intend, pretty much leave me saying "this isn't a good idea".

Honestly, nothing was wrong with Xorg, in my opinion. It works as intended like Windows GDI+. Yes there were some security flaws, but really, what was wrong with Xorg? I honestly see Wayland as a solution in search of a problem, not the other way around. If there was consistency with the compositors this wouldn't be a problem, but Plasma has their own problems, Gnome wants to be the rebellious child, Enlightenment is their own thing, Weston is sitting in the corner rocking back and forth thinking its a tea pot, and God knows what else the rest are doing running around the house aimlessly, but nothing is consistent while Xorg is sitting at the table, well behaved and saying "Oh so I'm not that important anymore? Have fun with the miscreants!" as it sits it's tea and reads the newspaper.

If you think Xorg is well "behaved" and not an issue you do not live in reality.. xorg is a utter mess and needs to go. frankly since swapping to Plasma wayland my PC performs much better

In my mind, the only thing Xorg needed fixing on was a better / more supported way to not run as root. Outside of that, they did all the work to make it modular during the development from XFree86. The problem is that people don't like maintaining old stuff, and want to play with new toys. That's all Wayland is. It'll be a new toy, until it isn't, then someone else will declare that it's crap and no one should be using it and then we'll be in the exact same boat as before...

There are definitely things that Wayland does okay, but nothing they do that is special over X11, and end up still needing compatibility layer to X11...

Performance wise, I notice very little difference between Xorg / Wayland. Like somethings feel a little smoother, other things feel slower. I definitely notice things just not working right in Wayland though. Weirdly, I had an issue where the Synology Drive app didn't want to work in Xorg, but would in Wayland... after a reboot, it was fine though.

I think that isn't true. The reason we need something new is simple: Xorg was released in 2004. Pretty much everything is different now and with software, once it starts doing things that weren't concievable when it was designed, things start falling apart. "Modularity" isn't a checkbox, it is a relative thing. What a module was supposed to be was also thought up in 2004, so that is also inadequate. In 204, screens were 480p, screensharing did not exist, security was not really a designconsideration, VR was still science fiction and Linux desktop Linux was still very obscure. Stating that creating something new was just because people wanted something new is not really fair IMO.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: whizseX11 was of course in contrast to Wayland loved by all and never faced any criticism.

If the designers of X-Windows built cars, there would be no fewer than five steering wheels hidden about the cockpit, none of which followed the same principles -- but you'd be able to shift gears with your car stereo. Useful feature, that.

This is what happens when software with good intentions goes bad. It victimizes innocent users by distorting their perception of what is and what is not good software. This malignant window system must be destroyed.

Oh, wait, maybe not. [External Link]

That was an hillarious read, thanks

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I see a lot of people here that are saying:"I tried Wayland but x didn't work, so I moved back". I have two ssuggestions here:
1. Reportthe bugs you are experiencing. Developers often don't know all issues with the platform, so help them. I have found most are extremely responsive.
2. How long ago has it been that you have tried? I have used Wayland for a year now and it has noticably improved in just the last few months, and that is with Plasma 5.
If you don't want to do that, I understand as well. On the KDE side, Plasma 6 will probably be the end-all-be-all for major Wayland issues (not saying for all users, some people need more niche APIs).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Very good development. I am rooting for Godot to become "The blender of gamedevelopment" but niche game-engines will probably always exist and this is clearly a good development. An advantage of the whole Unity debacle is that the aftermath has been a stronger competition.

View this comment - View article - View full comments