3

So I realize this is an issue that seems to be somewhat contested. I've heard people are upset that Wayland will have client-side window decoration, and I happen to agree. It doesn't sound like a good idea at all. But isn't one of the benefits of switching to Wayland that it is more flexible? I don't see why a Wayland compositor couldn't do the window decorations itself? For example, compiz does it's own window decorations already (albeit in a different process). If compiz will be "ported" to work with Wayland, which I understand it will, then we still haven't lost window decoration, right?

Hassan
  • 5,278
  • 4
  • 37
  • 76

2 Answers2

3

Wayland could do decorations in the compositor, sure. But the compositor and the app's UI toolkit have to agree on who's doing decorations (or else you get double-decorated), and I think people just prefer to have the toolkit do it in order to get more design flexibility. Changing window system is an opportunity to change this decision.

If you have everything drawn in the same codebase then you can mix-and-match visual and functional details more easily instead of having some details inherently belong in an "outer frame" and others inside the window. That allows a Google Chrome type of look or allows a theme with a continuous gradient including titlebar and app background or whatever, things like that.

You could, I think, still support UI implemented by the compositor for forcing an app to move, such as Alt+click, forcing an app to close, etc.

Anyway there are definitely some threads on the net hashing out the pros and cons in more detail, I guess that's a tangent.

Havoc P
  • 8,101
  • 1
  • 28
  • 45
  • 4
    Yes, but the whole "design flexibility" thing seems very scary to me. I could be wrong, but I'm imagining a Linux world where every app has it's own look, completely unique to it. Sure each one looks great by itself. But all mixed together, this will damage the usability of Linux IMHO (and we already have problems on that front). – Hassan Feb 23 '11 at 02:17
  • I think the answer people would give is that you need consistency in much more than just the window titlebar, and the way to get that is a common toolkit. If there's a common toolkit, the toolkit can implement the window titlebar. Anyhow, Wayland doesn't decide this issue one way or the other as far as I know, Wayland is just an opportunity to re-decide it if desired. – Havoc P Feb 23 '11 at 05:27
  • 2
    I've just watched the recent FOSDEM Wayland videos, and most of it I absolutely love. This is one area where things are not so great, and I disagree when you said " and I think people just prefer to have the toolkit do it..". most people do not support this idea, namely the users. Its the user's desktop not the developers, and the user should be able to ultimately maintain control. If you really want to go mad, wait until you hear about how this works for cursors! The devs like this idea, I agree that most do. The Users on the other hand hate it, and they are the ultimate end-users. – J. M. Becker Mar 06 '12 at 22:30
  • They do have some ideas about it, possibly have something defines by freedesktop.org. That's not 100% terrible, but if I was invested in Wayland, I would prioritize some of those concepts. Another issue is about ALT+Tab, which if handled by the compositor, makes a valid argument for having the compositor handling more than they presented. – J. M. Becker Mar 06 '12 at 22:34
  • 1
    To sum it up, there are loads of people who hate X. There are loads of people who believe Wayland has the architecture down correctly. The issue is 'Weston'. Cliches make me nauseous, but They should not throw out the baby with the bath water. You don't need to get rid of the parts the users love `openbox`,`fluxbox`,`blackbox`...WMs in general, to get rid of what they hate (X). – J. M. Becker Mar 06 '12 at 22:45
  • @HavocP Many developers don't like it either, since they now are responsible for creating the decorations. Before, they just got them for free from the WM. – user27636 Apr 11 '19 at 03:51
2

If I understood this right, the toolkit of the application gets to decide if it uses decoration or not, this is definetly bad, as anyone can create a custom toolkit, or customize it to show custom decorations. If this is true, then I hate the idea, I imagine each and every propietary app for linux using this, and also gtk and qt apps looking different. This would cause a disaster, if I have to look at something like anti-virus on windows, I guess I'll propably have to start using BSD or haiku OS

user363834
  • 113
  • 1
  • 8
  • O man am I terrified! hypothetically freedesktop.org defines some standards, We just what? Hope all our applications follow conventions? Does not MS provide UI standards applications should ideally follow? The windows experience is not enough proof, this might not be enough? Many application developers are zealous, and will do what they think is appropriate. Basically I heard a lot of invalidation and dismissals, in regards to these concerns. They are valid concerns, and should be addressed as there are many who want Wayland to succeed. – J. M. Becker Mar 06 '12 at 22:40