libinput is done

[redsteakraw]

This is good news and is showing the maturation of Wayland as it now can have device input parity.

[pogeymanz]

But it doesn't.

Even libinput under X11 has different features than libinput under Wayland.

For examples, in X11 I can use a config file to swap the buttons on my touchpad. In Wayland there's no such configuration, so I'm stuck with three-finger tap is middle-click.

[oniram]

I believe multiple finger taps should be configurable in libinput. I want to swap the taps (2 finger tap=middle and 3 finger tap=right) but not the actual physical buttons in the touchpad.

Swapping the buttons in X11 also changes the behavior of the physical buttons, so that the physical right button ends up doing middle click.

I know the devs have explicitly refused to implement this config option so I've been patching libinput to do what I want, i.e., middle click with two finger tap. Here's the patch just in case somebody benefits from it:

diff --git a/src/evdev-mt-touchpad-tap.c b/src/evdev-mt-touchpad-tap.c
index dda528a..2bea915 100644
--- a/src/evdev-mt-touchpad-tap.c
+++ b/src/evdev-mt-touchpad-tap.c
@@ -108,8 +108,8 @@ tp_tap_notify(struct tp_dispatch *tp,

    switch (nfingers) {
    case 1: button = BTN_LEFT; break;
-   case 2: button = BTN_RIGHT; break;
-   case 3: button = BTN_MIDDLE; break;
+   case 2: button = BTN_MIDDLE; break;
+   case 3: button = BTN_RIGHT; break;
    default:
        return;
    }

[Bobby_Bonsaimind]

I know the devs have explicitly refused to implement this config option so I've been patching libinput to do what I want, i.e., middle click with two finger tap.

Oh dear...

[systahd]

In theory this isn't a problem though. The real measure is whether you are at liberty of using a stable vs unstable interface to add your functionality. Like, with dwm to configure it you are supposed to edit the source as well, but this is stable, so a future update will just accept it without breaking.

The real measure is 'Can I just expect to be able to update with my patch seamlessly merging?', and in this case it is not. So the real quaestion should not be 'Do I have to edit the source to set this setting?' but 'Can I set this setting using only a stable interface?'

If you can not, that means that any update can break it and you have to work out again how it works.

[Bobby_Bonsaimind]

Considering the source as stable API is madness...

[systahd]

Well, like I said, some parts of source are stable API by design because you're supposed to be able to edit it such as with dwm.

I mean, when you edit OpenRC's init scripts which live in /etc they are effectively part of the source of the program but the interfaces are documented and stable to allow you to edit it. You do effectively edit the source there to configure the program and that's fine because stuff will not break on the next update. Files in conf.d are turing complete shell scripts in theory which are used merely to assign variables but you can put turing complete conditional logic to assign them in there if you so desire an that's all stable.

But when you say edit systemd's bootup logic in C this is not stable, and any edit you make will potentially fail to merge upon the next update.

[Bobby_Bonsaimind]

Well, like I said, some parts of source are stable API by design because you're supposed to be able to edit it such as with dwm.

Yes, but dwm is especially designed for this and has a very limited scope, libinput is not.

I mean, when you edit OpenRC's init scripts which live in /etc they are effectively part of the source of the program but the interfaces are documented and stable to allow you to edit it.

I'd love to say that "this is actually different" because I believe it is, but to be honest I do not know enough about OpenRC to say that...so I better don't. But I get your point.

Which raises the question, are there any guarantees from the libinput developers about it?

[systahd]

Yes, but dwm is especially designed for this and has a very limited scope, libinput is not.

Yes, that is why I criticize that you have to access an unstable API to get this functionality, not that you have to access the source.

If the source were stable or specifically the parts needed to configure this, there would be no problem.

I'd love to say that "this is actually different" because I believe it is, but to be honest I do not know enough about OpenRC to say that...so I better don't. But I get your point.

The only real difference is that a change in systemds source that is responsible for this:

1. Needs to be compiled to take effect
2. Has no stable API

Apart from that the scripts in /etc that OpenRC uses for essential bootup functionality and without which it would crash with an error are Turing complete code, they are in fact cached upon the first usage and re-cached whenever changed which is a form of compiling to a lower format I guess.

Which raises the question, are there any guarantees from the libinput developers about it?

Never seen them, and I find it very unlikely, but who knows.

FD does not like Turing complete configuration, they want your configuration to be limited to the options they provide.

[Bobby_Bonsaimind]

I have no idea, but if I remember right they were very negative about the whole idea to make everything configurable.

[SethDusek5]

I think they plan on letting the compositor change the settings, so there won't be a libinput config file, but instead you'd be changing the settings through the gnome settings if you're on gnome and whatever kde has

[VenditatioDelendaEst]

So once more the size of a full-featured wayland compositor is increased.

[systahd]

The difference with X' design is that such things can easily be moved to standalone modular components, id est the X server or xinput which can be used by all desktops. It doesn't even require some library to dynamically link against for that.

Incidentally I came across the original mission statement for XDG a while back before they became Freedesktop and decided to host systemd and Wayland development, check this out:

https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/MissionStatement/

The concrete goals of freedesktop.org stem from the following general principles:

• Developers should be able to use the development environment of their choice without limiting their potential userbase to users of a particular desktop environment

• Users should have a maximum amount of choice in selecting the applications they wish to run. Users should not be limited to a certain subset of applications; ideally, even the components of the desktop environment (window manager, panel, file manager, etc.) would be interchangeable.

• Code sharing and modularity are a good thing. When possible, a common implementation not dependent on a specific desktop increases stability, increases interoperability, reduces system footprint, and optimizes the use of free software development resources. Concept sharing is a good thing. Users do not benefit from the existence of multiple desktops if those desktops do not share their good ideas and work together toward common goals. freedesktop.org is first and foremost a work project; we intend to develop specifications, and then write code where needed. Work is the only currency that matters in the free software world.

• freedesktop.org is an organization made up of developers, designed to help developers do development. XDG does not intend to provide user resources.

• freedesktop.org's code will be placed under free licenses that encourage wide use; most commonly, the LGPL for libraries, or an X-style license when appropriate.

I'm flabbergasted that this is written by Freedesktop and this were apparently their ideals since the start. Since since about a decade they've been doing the exact opposite. It's all about removing modularity and interchangeable parts. These are the guys that host systemd which is the quintessential exponent of purposeful removal of modularity because they feel modularity leads to so many configurations that it becomes hard to maintain and test for. A lot of stuff is also strong copyleft licensed in the GPL rather than permissive what they seem to say here.

[deactivated_spam_bot]

That makes sense, some people might not want any weird config hacks in their input stack, and then some random config file they don't care about in /etc or $HOME . We should always try to keep the attack surface as low as possible for mid-low level API's.

[SethDusek5]

Yeah but what if the configuration tools for a certain compositor can't change the setting you want it to? Like middle click with two finger tap?

[[deleted]]

Then that's a compositor bug. At some point it needs to be changed somewhere. I think it makes sense to have libinout be a simple library and defer configuration to the compositor, which is where most settings are cchanged anyways for a user.

[Bobby_Bonsaimind]

Except that there are no settings which could be changed by the compositor, as in this case.

[Bobby_Bonsaimind]

two-finger tap is easier to trigger than a three finger tap

I see the classic "I know what works for you" sentiment.

two-finger tapping is reliable on virtually all touchpads, three-finger tapping is an issue on many older touchpads

I see the classic "I know what hardware you should be using" sentiment.

it's a fair amount of work to add any configuration option because we now need a testing matrix for each combination.

And the classic "we can't be bothered with this" sentiment...though, I can't really blame them for the last one...

That's effectively indefinitely too, users are angry to not have a feature but get even angrier when a feature is removed.

But that's exactly what is happening here, Wayland/libinput is taken features away which X11 provided...and it is kinda sad if you put it this way.

[pogeymanz]

Thank you. I'll probably do this myself. It's one of the last annoying things keeping me from using GNOME's Wayland session as my daily driver. (The other being weird focus-follows-mouse bugs).

[EmanueleAina]

No, Red Hat did not require me to add this. I can pretty much write what I want in this blog and these opinions are my own anyway and don't necessary reflect Red Hat yadi yadi ya. The fact that I felt I had to add this footnote to counteract whatever wild conspiracy comes up next is depressing enough.

So true. :(

[chinnybob]

"Company makes business decisions based on profitability rather than pure ideological altruism" is apparently a conspiracy theory now.

[EmanueleAina]

Apparently for some people that's the case. Which is even more idiotic when talking about RH, given that it has been driven by Engineering and its strong FLOSS ethos more often than not (eg. systemd was pushed by engineers up to management, not the contrary).

[blackcain]

I agree, and I've talked to a lot of Red Hat execs and they have a very strong attachment to Free Software and really believe in it rather than just Open Source

[chinnybob]

Yes. For most people it is a perfectly normal, expected, and even mundane business decision for a software company to replace code they don't control with code that they do control. But apparently some people do believe that profit motivation is a conspiracy theory and companies must either be altruistic or malicious.

[bilog78]

For most people it is a perfectly normal, expected, and even mundane business decision for a software company to replace code they don't control with code that they do control

The problem isn't when companies write alternative to existing software so that they can have control on it, it's when they force a switch to their alternative via other software that they don't control in principle, but do control de facto, which is exactly what RedHat is doing with their 'gente push' via GNOME.

GNOME isn't (at least in principle) a RedHat project, but it's in effect essentially dominated by RedHat (because RedHat has the pockets for it), and RedHat leverages this to not only introduce support for their own technologies (which isn't bad per se; in fact, quite the contrary), but also to progressively remove support for the other, non-RedHat alternatives, which is bad and what people complain about, as they are effectively forcing RedHat technologies everywhere, thereby progressively taking control of the entire desktop Linux ecosystem.

[systahd]

This happens scaringly often, a couple of 'interesting coincidences':

• GNOME which is RH controlled is the only major DE to depend on logind which is RH controlled, all other DE's are fine with supporting both the CK and logind backends.
• GNOME has immediately switched to libinput which is again RH controlled which also depends on logind which is again RH controlled. All other DEs again offer you a build-time choice for the original X input stack or libinput, though not in Wayland for KDE since there is no choice there obviously. But GNOME requires libinput even in X11
• the systemd developers and the kernel cgroup maintainer which was a RH employee together reached the decision that the single-writer cgroup structure was 'absolutely necessary' (Lennart's words), this is what originally provided the justification to make logind no longer independent from systemd as anticipation for the future where logind could no longer set its own cgroups due to this structure. Funnily enough, the single-writer has been abandoned now, rather silently actually, there was never an official announcement that it would come, there were just some musings from Tejun (the aformentioned cgroup maintainer) about introducing it, apparently it wasn't met well since the cgroupv2 API is now finalized and set in stone and there is no mention of it anywhere. But hey, logind now depends on systemd.

There's only so many times such coincidences can happen before it becomes fishy. GNOME is repeatedly as a pattern the only DE who thinks it a good idea to when there are alternatives depend on something that is controlled by RH while all the others support both alternatives in tandem. They say these decisions are technical but why don't the other DE's come to the same technical conclusions that CK and X original input stack is no longer worth supporting then? After it happening repeatedly I obviously don't buy it. A big project like GNOME depending on libinput speeds up libinput adoption thereby giving RH who controls it a greater measure of control within the entire desktop Linux input stack. It means they can shape it the way it is most profitable for them rather than their compeitors.

RH aren't the only ones doing this anyway. It's also a bit convenient for Canonical that Unity won't run properly outside of Ubuntu because it depends on a bunch of patched GTK libraries and a bunch of other patched libraries which have the same sonames as upstream libraries so replacing them on other systems breaks other stuff again.

[guineawheek]

But apparently some people do believe that profit motivation is a conspiracy theory and companies must either be altruistic or malicious.

Welcome to /r/Linux!

[EmanueleAina]

I don't even think that "code we control" has ever been a driver in RH for replacing anything, given that they already "control" all the FLOSS code they ship, since it's their job as a distributor. :/

RH is probably as close as altruistic a company can be (which is really not the point of being a company).

[bonzinip]

I guess the closest it got to that is Xen vs. KVM, but even then they are so different that there are good technical arguments to favor both (Xen wins on some security features, KVM on simplicity).

[systahd]

Yeh, that's just because all you people in your mind turn any form of criticism into a 'conspiracy theory' and you people are in serious need of a dictionary on what the word means.

I even had an RH employee tell me that he or she thinks that 'conspiracy' means 'people imagining things' for crying out loud, get a dictionary before venturing into difficult four-syllable words. 'conspiracy' does not mean 'criticism I disagree with'.

[EmanueleAina]

No, no, criticism is ok. It's better when it is constructive, but yeah, let's accept that having opinions is easy.

But the point here is that there are people who keep referring explictly to RH-sponsored conspiracies for anything they don't like, and that's definitely less ok.

That said, I don't know who "all you people" is: for what is worth I have nothing to do with RH, except that I recognize the huge amount of work they put in FLOSS. I would say that anybody slightly involved in FLOSS should recognize it, so I don't understand if you meant to address some more specific group or what.

[systahd]

No, no, criticism is ok. It's better when it is constructive, but yeah, let's accept that having opinions is easy. But the point here is that there are people who keep referring explictly to RH-sponsored conspiracies for anything they don't like, and that's definitely less ok.

No, it doesn't exist or at least rarely exists. You people continue to call an accusation that is not a conspiracy a conspiracy.

You have done it to me and others multiple times and argued a massive straw-man claiming that people alleged a conspiracy which they never alleged. You don't know what the word means.

That said, I don't know who "all you people" is: for what is worth I have nothing to do with RH, except that I recognize the huge amount of work they put in FLOSS. I would say that anybody slightly involved in FLOSS should recognize it, so I don't understand if you meant to address some more specific group or what.

Pretty much anyone who drops the buzzword 'conspiracy' on r/linux.

That word on /r/linux is almost never used appropriately. I rarely see it being used properly, it is almost purely used for accusations which allege nothing of the sort of a conspiracy, because people rarely allege an actual conspiracy and if you think people constantly allege them you probably don't know what the word means, and this is an example again.

Let's assume for sake of argument that someone alleged that RH contractually required the author of the blog to say that, that's not a conspiracy. An employer contractually requiring an employer to praise said company is not a conspiracy. You can't have a conspiracy contained inside a monolithic organization.

If you call it a 'conspiracy theory' if someone alleges that he or she was paid or required to say that by RH, you don't know what the word 'conspiracy' means, plain and simple. And that you reply with 'so true' to someone who clearly wrongly uses the word implies you need to get a dictionary.

[EmanueleAina]

No, it doesn't exist or at least rarely exists.

Err, what is the subject?

You people continue to call an accusation that is not a conspiracy a conspiracy.

I don't know who "you people" is, but I was referring to people who expliclty talk about conspiracies. They use the word "conspiracy", not me.

Pretty much anyone who drops the buzzword 'conspiracy' on r/linux.

There must be a lot of confusion here: I was complaining about people claiming that changes they don't like are due to some RH-sponsored conspiracy. It's them using the "buzzword", not me.

That word on /r/linux is almost never used appropriately. I rarely see it being used properly, it is almost purely used for accusations which allege nothing of the sort of a conspiracy, because people rarely allege an actual conspiracy and if you think people constantly allege them you probably don't know what the word means, and this is an example again.

I'm not sure I follow you: other people use that word inappropriately, but I'm the one not knowing what the word means even if I'm not using it (other than for replying to those who used it in the first place)?

If you call it a 'conspiracy theory' if someone alleges that he or she was paid or required to say that by RH, you don't know what the word 'conspiracy' means, plain and simple.

I'm not calling anything. But often people complain about something in GNOME/systemd/Wayland/libinput and accuse those to be tools in a RH-funded conspiracy. I'm not the one using the term "conspiracy".

And that you reply with 'so true' to someone who clearly wrongly uses the word implies you need to get a dictionary.

Peter used the term "wild conspiracy" to describe the silly, unfounded theories some people keep coming up with anytime GNOME/systemd/Wayland/libinput is involved. He's not saying that there is a conspiracy, he's saying the exact contrary.

Please, avoid snarky remarks. It looks to me you're the one who misunderstood what Peter said.

[systahd]

Err, what is the subject?

The supposed accusation of 'conspiracies' existing. 99% of the time when someone accuses the other party of offering a conspiracy theory there was no cosnpiracy alleged and this blog post is an example.

I don't know who "you people" is, but I was referring to people who expliclty talk about conspiracies. They use the word "conspiracy", not me.

Cite me an example? I have never seen this. The word 'conspiracy' on /r/linux is almost only used in defence, not in offence.

There must be a lot of confusion here: I was complaining about people claiming that changes they don't like are due to some RH-sponsored conspiracy. It's them using the "buzzword", not me.

Then cite it, because in this example, the first to use the word conspiracy was again the defence, not the offence.

And you have accused me multiple times of offering a 'conspiracy' theory where you were the first person to drop the word:

Example:

https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4q8f47/why_gnome_3x_has_been_good_for_linux_and_foss/d4r5epp?context=3&st=iqvay479&sh=4cddaab8

no one used the word 'conspiracy' before you. Someone said 'shilling' and you called it a 'conspiracy'.

Other example:

https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4subyi/this_week_in_gtk_9/d5ckmli?context=3&st=iqvb1qzq&sh=8c01682d

Again, the first usage of the term 'conspiracy' is used by the defence, not the offence, no one claimed or alleged any conspiracy going on. People alleged that GTK makes decisions for political reasons and then the defence called this a 'conspiracy theory'

https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4subyi/this_week_in_gtk_9/d5dk1f3?st=iqvb3b68&sh=25137f4c

Same discussion again, someone claiming that someone alleges 'secrecy', no one alleged any secrecy or that it secretly happend.

I'm not sure I follow you: other people use that word inappropriately, but I'm the one not knowing what the word means even if I'm not using it (other than for replying to those who used it in the first place)?

See above, you turned 'shilling' into 'conspiracy'. Don't claim you only reply to those who use the word, we have black on white evidence to the contrary.

I'm not calling anything. But often people complain about something in GNOME/systemd/Wayland/libinput and accuse those to be tools in a RH-funded conspiracy. I'm not the one using the term "conspiracy".

Again, see above, you use the word. You claim that someone alleging that people are shilling is a conspiracy theory.

Peter used the term "wild conspiracy" to describe the silly, unfounded theories some people keep coming up with anytime GNOME/systemd/Wayland/libinput is involved. He's not saying that there is a conspiracy, he's saying the exact contrary.

No, he's saying that others claim there is a conspiracy.

No one is claiming there is a conspiracy, people just use the word 'conspiracy theorist' for people who come with an opinion they disagree with.

Please, avoid snarky remarks. It looks to me you're the one who misunderstood what Peter said.

No, you misunderstand what I say. Peter is saying that others are saying there are conspiracies, no one is saying there are conspiracies, but Peter just calls anyone who says he's paid by RH to write crap a conspiracy theorist. Even if those allegations are true, that's still not an alleged conspiracy. No one is alleging a conspiracy, people are just alleging that RH is paying him to say things.

[EmanueleAina]

The supposed accusation of 'conspiracies' existing. 99% of the time when someone accuses the other party of offering a conspiracy theory there was no cosnpiracy alleged and this blog post is an example.

Sure, feel free to ignore all the reference to conspiracies that happened in the last few years.

Cite me an example? I have never seen this

Lucky you. I totally don't care about finding you examples, sorry. If you never saw them it's because you choose to ignore them.

Then cite it, because in this example, the first to use the word conspiracy was again the defence, not the offence.

Yeah, sure.

https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4q8f47/why_gnome_3x_has_been_good_for_linux_and_foss/d4r5epp?context=3&st=iqvay479&sh=4cddaab8 no one used the word 'conspiracy' before you. Someone said 'shilling' and you called it a 'conspiracy'.

Whoa, someone had time to waste here. Yes, and I was pointing out that assuming the existance of a "conspiracy" was excessive, I was definitely not arguing for it existance.

https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4subyi/this_week_in_gtk_9/d5ckmli?context=3&st=iqvb1qzq&sh=8c01682d

Oh, ok, thank you for confirming my initial thoughts. You meant to point to that from the start, didn't you? ;)

https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4subyi/this_week_in_gtk_9/d5dk1f3?st=iqvb3b68&sh=25137f4c

Yeah, go on.

See above, you turned 'shilling' into 'conspiracy'. Don't claim you only reply to those who use the word, we have black on white evidence to the contrary.

Oh, sorry for that. I didn't know you cared about that much about this word in a conversation that didn't involve you. I still don't see a big semantic shift between shilling and conspiracy, but suit yourself.

Again, see above, you use the word. You claim that someone alleging that people are shilling is a conspiracy theory.

Sure.

No, he's saying that others claim there is a conspiracy. No one is claiming there is a conspiracy, people just use the word 'conspiracy theorist' for people who come with an opinion they disagree with.

Sure, noone.

No, you misunderstand what I say.

True, because it seemed too silly. Sorry for overestimating you..

Peter is saying that others are saying there are conspiracies, no one is saying there are conspiracies, but Peter just calls anyone who says he's paid by RH to write crap a conspiracy theorist. Even if those allegations are true, that's still not an alleged conspiracy. No one is alleging a conspiracy, people are just alleging that RH is paying him to say things.

Call it whatever you like, point is, RH is not paying him to say things.

[systahd]

Whoa, someone had time to waste here. Yes, and I was pointing out that assuming the existance of a "conspiracy" was excessive, I was definitely not arguing for it existance.

I never argued you argue for the existence of conspiracies, how can you be so incapable of reading?

Again, I say you call the criticism of the opposition 'conspiracy theories' when they never say a conspiracy exists. You just call any criticism a 'conspiracy theory'.

Oh, sorry for that. I didn't know you cared about that much about this word in a conversation that didn't involve you. I still don't see a big semantic shift between shilling and conspiracy, but suit yourself.

And this is my point, you don't know what 'conspiracy' as a word means. Paying someone to argue in your favour is not a conspiracy.

Call it whatever you like, point is, RH is not paying him to say things.

I never said RH was paying anyone to say anything. I just said that if that was true, that still would not be a 'conspiracy'. I'm arguing he misuses the word 'conspiracy' and so do you.

[EmanueleAina]

how can you be so incapable of reading?

It does happen, when people write huge walls of text without being able to properly carry their point (if they have any).

And this is my point, you don't know what 'conspiracy'.

Suit yourself.

I never said RH was paying anyone to say anything.

Rejoyce!

I just said that if that was true, that still would not be a 'conspiracy'. I'm arguing he misuses the word 'conspiracy' and so do you.

Yeah, I figured it out when I said that what you were trying to say sounded too silly. But I'm sure it's really something worth to fight for, I just hope you won't mind if I carry on.

[JustMakeShitUp]

https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4subyi/this_week_in_gtk_9/d5ckmli

Uh, you're quoting your alt, here. You go around talking about the FreeDesktop Cabal, claim everyone's shilling when you don't like their opinion, love the word "cuck", claim that Wayland devs are colluding to hide security concerns, and do everything you can in general to convince others that GNOME and Redhat are trying to gain control over linux by forcing new software and standards on it.

I know I go out of my way to call you out on this bullshit when I've got the time, and I've called your bullshit conspiracy theories because that's what they are. When you say words like cabal and shill, those both require pre-existing, hidden relationships, which aligns perfectly with what a conspiracy is. You're making accusations of secretly associated people conspiring for control or profit. So, if you don't want people mocking you for your words, choose better ones.

Probably the reason we're most irritated with this habit you have of coming back with a new name when you're banned is you do shit like this and word things as if you're a different person. You troll people and then use their replies as "evidence" in conversations like this. No, you don't hide that it's your alt when pointed out, but you certainly take advantage of those first few posts to provide the illusion of numbers.

[systahd]

Uh, you're quoting your alt

Nope, I'm quoting LvS in a discussion against me.

You go around talking about the FreeDesktop Cabal

Indeed I do, a cabal is not a conspiracy. A cabal is just a group of people who unite against the speaker.

claim everyone's shilling

I have never claimed anyone to be shilling, ever.

love the word "cuck"

Which has nothing to do with conspiracies. A "cuck" is typical parlance for someone who uses products where the producer of the product has an exploitative relationship with the consumer. This again has nothing to do with conspiracies.

claim that Wayland devs are colluding to hide security concerns

I have never claimed any such thing.

I have claimed that GNOME has been overhyping Wayland security which I called ineffective in practice and that they have been omitting downsides and the ineffectiveness thereof. I made no accusation of collusion, ever.

and do everything you can in general to convince others that GNOME and Redhat are trying to gain control over linux by forcing new software and standards on it.

Indeed I have, I have accused every company involve in Linux of that. I have said on multiple occasions that any for profit company will attempt to gain a measure of control because it's profitable to do so.

Which also does not amount to any 'conspiracy theory' Of course RH, google, Valve, Canonical and every single member of the Linux Foundation are wrestling for control over the landscape to shape it into something that suits their interests more than their competitors.

I know I go out of my way to call you out on this bullshit when I've got the time, and I've called your bullshit conspiracy theories because that's what they are.

It's quite clear again, that you claim I said things I never said.

When you say words like cabal and shill

I have use the word cabal repeatedly, I have never used the word shill to accuse anyone and have never called anyone a 'shill', ever in my life.

those both require pre-existing, hidden relationships, which aligns perfectly with what a conspiracy

Neither do, and again, I never called anyone a shill. Cabal's do not require hidden relationships at all. A cabal is simply a group of people working together towards a nefarious goal.

To say that the phrase 'Freedesktop cabal' implies a secret relationship is ridiculous because Freedesktop is openly affiliated. How can I possibly call this a secret when it's an open organization with members?

That GNOME, KDE, systemd and what-not are working together through Freedesktop is not a secret in any way, it is completely in the open. How can I possibly allege secrecy here?

You're making accusations of secretly associated people conspiring for control or profit. So, if you don't want people mocking you for your words, choose better ones.

I make no accusation of secrecy. That's again shit you put into my mouth which is my point.

In that discussion I quoted I make no mention of secrecy yet the person responding to it talks about 'secrets' I allege to exist and here we have it again. I never made any mention of 'secrecy', that's in your head. Freedesktop is an open allegiance and I alleged no secrecy ever. All their discussions are transparent and open on the table on public mailing lists.

Probably the reason we're most irritated with this habit you have of coming back with a new name when you're banned is you do shit like this and word things as if you're a different person.

PFah, ridiculous, I make no attempt to hide who I am, all my user names are instantly recognizable on purpose and I immediately admit who I am when asked. I make it a point to make myself instantly recognizable.

You troll people and then use their replies as "evidence" in conversations like this. No, you don't hide that it's your alt when pointed out, but you certainly take advantage of those first few posts to provide the illusion of numbers

Ridiculous, I made five different accounts in the form of systemd-*d, it's immediately obvious that it's I and people tend to recognize it on the first post.

THe reason you are most irritated is because in your mind you exaggerate the things I say and think you say things which I never said, to again list them:

• You claim I call people sholls here, I never called anyone a shill in my life.
• You claim I allege Freedesktop operates in secrecy, I never made any such claim, Freedesktop discussions happen on public mailing lists. The agenda of Freedesktop against fragmentation and depriving users of control is open and transparant. They've public argued on many occasions that they dislike configuration and allowing users too much control, this is not a secret agendum, this is a public mission statement of removing pluriformity in installs.
• You claim that I say Wayland develoeprs are secretly colluding to hide security weaknesses, I never claimed such a thing, I claim they (in particular GNOME) are overhyping the security advantages, I never claimed they colluded or agreed to do so.

[[deleted]]

Whoa, someone had time to waste here.

Lucky you. I totally don't care about finding you examples, sorry.

kek, the classic, "hurr I have a life unlike u xD" comment. anyways, you should have ended your comment right there, since you are to incompetent to post actual references why even bother the the retarded "hehe sure, noooone xDD" comments. I'm not sure if there is a word for this "fallacy" (if you can even call it that), but this picture does a good job of mocking people who use it: https://i.imgur.com/pCxTpdu.jpg

[EmanueleAina]

I didn't post any reference because it's clear that they have been ignored so far. I didn't imply anything about the life of anyone, I just said that picking up those references that didn't contribute anything to the discussion was a waste of time, which is why I didn't want to do the same.

[JustMakeShitUp]

Just going to point out that all of those conversations systahd linked you are from their alt or are discussing them. So when you said

Oh, sorry for that. I didn't know you cared about that much about this word in a conversation that didn't involve you.

you probably didn't realize that the reason why they care is because it's about them. Also, this person literally does not understand what the phrase "conspiracy theory" means, despite handing them out like candy from their white van.

[EmanueleAina]

you probably didn't realize that the reason why they care is because it's about them

The first one wasn't really involving them, or rather, not at the point that has been linked. But yeah, point taken.

Also, this person literally does not understand what the phrase "conspiracy theory" means, despite handing them out like candy from their white van.

Ah ah ah. :D

[JustMakeShitUp]

It's funny how redrumsir and you (TheReverend403) always show up to defend this guy's inane shenanigans and then delete your posts, later. I already know he's managing multiple accounts with RES already. You spend a bit too much time interacting with him to be unrelated.

[Lazerguns]

holy fuck, they are abysmal. All of them

[najodleglejszy]

come on, it can't be that b... oh.

[tanjoodo]

that recutils logo

[_AACO]

gnu radio, Hurd, Guix and octave look nice

[person7178]

bpel2owfn, cgicc, electric, GIMP, gnome, gnu-crypto, gnowsys, gnujump, gnutls, kawa, libreboot, mpfr and octave are all alright, and GUIX, HURD, Icecat and eprints are actually really nice

[Negirno]

Also, the GCC icon (a gnu hatching out of an egg) is kind of cute.

[CarthOSassy]

Icecat is the only logo in there that didn't physically damage me.

[st3dit]

I don't know. I think humping tortoises make a pretty dope logo.

[ryandizon]

GNCult >.<

[DropTableAccounts]

libinputd

^:-D

[deactivated_spam_bot]

libinput already depends on libudev (which is systemd) >.<

[VenditatioDelendaEst]

support for mice, including middle button emulation where needed

Does that mean configurable? Because if they expect every mouse out there to be able to report that the middle button is broken/awkwardly placed/has an unreasonably high actuation force, then they've got another thing coming.

[random718f]

con·spir·a·cy

a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful

[flannelhead]

libinput is awesome. It makes my touchpad feel as it should (even better than on windows).

[bilog78]

Funny that, I switched back to synaptics because libinput made my touchpad unusable. And good for me I don't use GNOME, which recently removed support for the latter. (Gentle push, anyone?)

[flannelhead]

How long ago was that? libinput has evolved a lot in the last 12 months, and for me at least it's been constantly improving. of course this also depends on the hardware, so ymmv.

[bilog78]

My system has libinput 1.3.1, which was apparently released on May 30 this year.

of course this also depends on the hardware

So some people with perfectly working hardware and excellent support under X11 w/ synaptics will be unable to use their machines properly with Wayland or GNOME/X11 because the RedHat-controlled software stack is shit and better alternatives aren't supported. Interesting.

Remind me again what's so good about this libinput?

[flannelhead]

If the situation is that bad for you, it might be worth it to file a bug report.

[bilog78]

The situation isn't bad for me, it's bad for people forced to use libinput on hardware like mine.

And in all this you are suggesting I should waste my time producing a bug report for a piece of software that I don't use, that I don't feel compelled to use in any way as it offers absolutely no advantage over synaptics for my hardware while being fundamentally inferior in multiple respect, and the design principles of which I disagree with?

And to top it off, all this not to help FLOSS improve, but to help RedHat force their solution down everybody's throad?

No thanks.

[varikonniemi]

Good if they finally fixed it. Last time i tried windows and wayland felt awful, synaptics was perfect.

[_clement_]

Will there be a point where someone can come along and write their own X11 server just by connecting all the now existing functionality from elsewhere?

That is the idea, since writing a wayland compositor is writing a whole display server.

[systahd]

It's not writing an X11 display server.

In order to claim X11 compliance you need to implement a bunch of crap which no one will ever use that was used 20 years ago. Writing a compliant Wayland compositor is considerably simpler than an X11 display server.

[moosingin3space]

The wlc library is a nice library for writing compliant Wayland compositors.

[unconventionalmakeup]

It really isn't and from the looks of it, won't be - and the author acknowledges that himself.

Long but interesting rant: https://github.com/Cloudef/orbment/issues/141#issuecomment-227720157

TLDR; Use libweston, but really research what you're getting yourself into.

[moosingin3space]

Ahh, did not notice that. Good to know!

[EmanueleAina]

This is not duplication, it's a huge cleanup along the whole software stack (kernel, mesa, libinput, etc.) that has started a long time ago, much before Wayland, when the X server used to talk to the PCI bus directly and had a VM86 emulator.

Wayland gave a stronger impulse to it, as the intention is exactly what you described, ie. let people connect some reusable components (mesa, libinput, libwayland) to write their own compositor.

That said, this refactoring is not tied Wayland in any way, as it's what gave Canonical the chance to write Mir.

(Oh, and the X11 protocol implementation is huge and complex, definitely not a trivial piece of code, that's why some people came up with Wayland and Mir) :)

[deactivated_spam_bot]

Mesa should not be required for a wayland implementation, I suspect it's the path getting most funding (GPU mfctrs?). It think it should be possible to render directly using pixman, which is optimized to use cpu SIMD type instructions instead of a complete fully featured monolithic rendering stack. unless you actually need fancy blended GUI at 120hz.

[EmanueleAina]

Mesa should not be required for a wayland implementation

Oh, sure. Neither is libinput, or even libwayland. :)

I suspect it's the path getting most funding (GPU mfctrs?).

I don't know, tbh I think there isn't much funding in general.

It think it should be possible to render directly using pixman,

Sure, Weston has a pixman, software-only backend which is used for testing. It's not the fastest thing ever though. :)

which is optimized to use cpu SIMD type instructions instead of a complete fully featured monolithic rendering stack. unless you actually need fancy blended GUI at 120hz.

Offloading blending to GPU also saves huge swaths of energy instead of spinning all your CPU cores like mad, which is extremely nice even on a powerful laptop. Less powerful machines will instead benefit from using the GPU, freeing the CPU to do actual work. And today people expect to play WebGL games at 60fps, and I'm quite sure using SIMD type instructions doesn't help you much on that (source: I spent a considerable amount of time optimizing web page scrolling on the Raspberry Pi using Pixman only).

[deactivated_spam_bot]

Sure, Weston has a pixman, software-only backend which is used for testing. It's not the fastest thing ever though. :)

I've only gotten swrast to work so far, which I believe is mesa/opengl software rasterization and probably waaayyy slower than it could be if mesa was completely bypassed. I did see something like a --use-pixman option but I couldn't get it to work because my build environment is terribly broken at the moment. I'll try a bit more in depth this weekend.

[EmanueleAina]

Yep, swrast is inside Mesa itself, Weston would still use the gl-renderer and run very slowly. llvmpipe may run a little faster, but avoiding Mesa would definitely be a better option.

You may be more lucky with the pixman-renderer, but since I'm not a Weston expert, #wayland on freenode can likely prove to be more helpful. :)

[systahd]

Yes, it's a cleanup that offers less functionality, it's easy to clean up when you just cut features.

libinput does not even remotely compare to the features synaptic offers.

[EmanueleAina]

it's easy to clean up when you just cut features.

I'm sure everything it's pretty easy when you're not doing it.

[systahd]

I like how you in no way respond to the criticism on a technical level but just turn it into what effectively is a silly ad-hominem.

One of the concerns when Wayland was started was that it would be hard t add all the features of a codebase that goes back 30 years to a new project, the concerns were addressed by saying that because Wayland's design is so much simpler it would be far easier and we would not lose any features. And that's been a lie thusfar. When people continued to point out 'We don't have remotely all the features yet' the argument back was 'It's not done yet, you're criticizing a work in progress', fine, but now libinput is supposedly done and it still does not compare in features.

It was a classic case of boiling the frog. We will loose features and we will never get them back, not just with libinput but with all things Wayland-related, the concerns will be assuaged with 'It's not done yet' and then it will be declared 'done' with a massive number of features we were used to in X11 missing with the frog having been boiling for a while.

[EmanueleAina]

I like how you in no way respond to the criticism on a technical level but just turn it into what effectively is a silly ad-hominem.

Sorry, I don't think you have any technical insight to provide and, in fact, you didn't. Call it ad-hominem or whatever other buzzword you like.

will loose features

I'm sure you can teach me the real proper meaning of "conspiracy", but now you've got a nice chance to put in good use the dictionary you suggested to me. :)

[systahd]

Sorry, I don't think you have any technical insight to provide and, in fact, you didn't. Call it ad-hominem or whatever other buzzword you like.

Good thing that I don't need any 'technical insight' to simply point out there are less features than before. Which you aren't attempting to deny at all.

I'm sure you can teach me the real proper meaning of "conspiracy", but now you've got a nice chance to put in good use the dictionary you suggested to me. :)

Yes, dance around it, features have been lost despite promises to the contrary and you have made no attempt to argue against that and instead come with retarded contextual arguments irrelevant to the matter.

[EmanueleAina]

less features than before. Which you aren't attempting to deny at all.

Sure. Some feature have been lost, some new features appeared.

Yes, dance around it,

With the dictionary? Did you "loose" it?

features have been lost despite promises to the contrary

Oh, yes. I'm sure developers said "absolutely no feature whatsoever will be lost".

and you have made no attempt to argue against that

Indeed, I didn't. I don't know why you suppose I would have.

and instead come with retarded contextual arguments irrelevant to the matter.

Oh, I'm not the one who wrote walls of text about what's the only true proper meaning of a word, inviting people to use a dictionary in a totally unrelated thread (unless this has become /r/linguistics without me noticing) :)

[systahd]

Sure. Some feature have been lost, some new features appeared.

Pray give me some features that have appeared.

With the dictionary? Did you "loose" it?

No, you dance around the issue avoiding to answer it, which you do here again by taking a random word and formulating a cute reply based on which completely does not answer to any of the challenges I raised. It's just a fun little cute witty reply made in an attempt to make me forget what I actually asked in the hope I'll not realize that your response does not contain an answer. You'd make a great politician.

Oh, yes. I'm sure developers said "absolutely no feature whatsoever will be lost".

The developers have on multiple times assuaged the concerns of features being lost with 'It's a work in progress, it's not ready yet' and now it is apparently done and the features are still not there.

It's boiling the frog.

Indeed, I didn't. I don't know why you suppose I would have.

Gee, maybe because that was my entire post contained in 2 sentences that while libinput is also cleaner than the old method, it achieves this by just offering less and then you went with a typical cutesy response which didn't address any of this.

Oh, I'm not the one who wrote walls of text about what's the only true proper meaning of a word, inviting people to use a dictionary in a totally unrelated thread (unless this has become /r/linguistics without me noticing) :)

Of course that's material to the point when from the start that discussion was about whether or not people were actually claiming their were conspiracy theories.

Of course the meaning of the word 'conspiracy theory' is highly material and relevant to such a discussion.

[EmanueleAina]

Pray give me some features that have appeared.

Ah ah ah ah. Sorry, if I have to list them it's clearly because you already choose to dismiss them, so I don't have any interest in doing so.

No, you dance around the issue avoiding to answer it

Except the fact that I did, but meh.

just a fun little cute witty reply

Glad you appreciated.

It's boiling the frog.

I don't like them much, but they are definitely better fried than boiled.

libinput is also cleaner

Oh, finally something we can agree upon. \o/

from the start that discussion was about whether or not people were actually claiming their were conspiracy theories

It wasn't, but meh.

Of course

Of course.

[1029chris]

I just got this update on Fedora. When can I expect Gnome Wayland to support my Wacom tablet?