I don't "actually want Wayland" because I want the simplicity of X and the ability to run my own wm, but I have no need for legacy X11 requests, for some values of "legacy". Whether this will become viable for me remains to be seen, but I need very little from my X11 server.

▲

mathstuf 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Look into river. It has the window management and keybindings able to be offered by other tools (I have an idea to implement one using XMonad's layouts).

It also vastly improved battery on my Dell Pro laptop. 58% battery used in 7h45m (light compilation day, but no suspend).

	▲	mikkupikku 23 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That sounds cool, but TBQH the last thing I want to do is make myself dependent on some obscure piece of tech I've only heard of once before (just now.) My plan is to keep running X as long as I can manage to make it run. If river finds traction and is well known to me in 10 years then I'll consider it then. This is one of my big problems with Wayland; the fragmentation of Wayland imposes an unacceptable cost to picking the wrong DE, whereas with X all my tools for X still work regardless of my DE.

▲

sho_hn 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Fair! Though I'm actually not sure I understand what you mean with simplicity. X11 is so vastly more complicated than Wayland.

▲

vidarh 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

For the server/compositor.

Not for the client, or if you want to write a wm and is forced to write a compositor.

And actually I'm not even even convinced about the server if talking about a minimal server like this that insists on DRI/GBM, and ditches all the old rendering cruft.

▲

LeFantome 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Well, you are not really forced to write a compositor these days as there are libraries that do all the heavy lifting for you.

Check out Louvre for example. Or Smithay if you like Rust. And if you want a bit more depth, there is wlroots of course (or the hyprland version). It is not really any harder than writing an X11 WM.

	▲	kelnos 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		wlroots and smithay (I'm not familiar with louvre) do a lot of the difficult work for you, that most compositors will do without much variation but there's still a lot that compositor writers still have to do. It's still a significantly larger task than, for example, writing an X11 WM. (Well, writing an X11 WM that also includes a built-in compositor is a bit more than just the WM, but I'd say still less than writing a Wayland compositor using wlroots or smithay. For example, xfwm4's compositor is around 5300 lines of C, which is... not nothing, but not crazy either.)

▲

dismalaf 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So build on top of wlroots or something. DWL for example is super small...

▲

mikkupikku 10 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

What's the simple way for a bash script to get the title of the currently focused window? In X this is easy and the bash script will work with every DE. In Wayland you have to write a different solution for each compositor/DE.. Prove me wrong, please.

It shouldn't be hard, all I want to do is fuzzy match window titles to named audio streams in pipewire, but "Oohh noo that's a security flaw!" say the patronizing Wayland developers who care more about making their own lives as developers simple than supporting basic desktop functionality.