| 2023-10-23 00:03:59 +0200 | td_ | (~td@i53870910.versanet.de) (Ping timeout: 255 seconds) |
| 2023-10-23 00:05:57 +0200 | td_ | (~td@i5387093D.versanet.de) |
| 2023-10-23 01:13:40 +0200 | tv | (~tv@user/tv) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2023-10-23 01:32:13 +0200 | tv | (~tv@user/tv) |
| 2023-10-23 01:32:39 +0200 | td_ | (~td@i5387093D.versanet.de) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) |
| 2023-10-23 01:34:31 +0200 | td_ | (~td@i5387090A.versanet.de) |
| 2023-10-23 02:22:27 +0200 | catman | (~catman@user/catman) (Quit: WeeChat 4.2.0-dev) |
| 2023-10-23 02:29:33 +0200 | catman | (~catman@user/catman) |
| 2023-10-23 05:03:28 +0200 | td_ | (~td@i5387090A.versanet.de) (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) |
| 2023-10-23 05:05:05 +0200 | td_ | (~td@i53870920.versanet.de) |
| 2023-10-23 07:26:55 +0200 | catman | (~catman@user/catman) (Quit: WeeChat 4.2.0-dev) |
| 2023-10-23 07:27:16 +0200 | catman | (~catman@user/catman) |
| 2023-10-23 08:17:43 +0200 | ft | (~ft@p4fc2a529.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) (Quit: leaving) |
| 2023-10-23 11:23:07 +0200 | derfflinger | (~derffling@user/derfflinger) |
| 2023-10-23 12:21:38 +0200 | td_ | (~td@i53870920.versanet.de) (Ping timeout: 258 seconds) |
| 2023-10-23 12:23:51 +0200 | <haskellbridge> | <Tranquil Ity> The Wayland protocol is pretty simple, what's hard is the stuff it needs to have done around it, such as display modesetting, input gathering and propagation, and the actual composition. |
| 2023-10-23 12:28:26 +0200 | td_ | (~td@i5387090e.versanet.de) |
| 2023-10-23 12:31:31 +0200 | <haskellbridge> | <Solid> This should be handeled by wlroots, no? I don't think trying to write our own implementation will end well; L-as's WayMonad implementation already modernised the bindings AFAIK |
| 2023-10-23 12:33:53 +0200 | <haskellbridge> | <Tranquil Ity> From what I saw of wlroots, I don't think it fits well with my way of doing things, as it seems to abstract a bit too much for my taste |
| 2023-10-23 12:35:01 +0200 | <haskellbridge> | <Solid> I think then your tastes will have to change :P |
| 2023-10-23 12:35:34 +0200 | <liskin> | Well it's okay to have different tastes… |
| 2023-10-23 12:35:35 +0200 | derfflinger | (~derffling@user/derfflinger) (Ping timeout: 255 seconds) |
| 2023-10-23 12:36:16 +0200 | <liskin> | But yeah we'd probably prefer a bit more pragmatic approach :-) |
| 2023-10-23 12:39:18 +0200 | <haskellbridge> | <Tranquil Ity> I believe that in the long run, not depending on wlroots is for the better, the abstraction is a bit too high level so it's likely to be limiting, and spending time on modifying that would add to more time than just having have written it more flexible in the first place |
| 2023-10-23 12:39:52 +0200 | <haskellbridge> | <Solid> In the long run I would hope that wlroots becomes what is now essentially the X server |
| 2023-10-23 12:40:35 +0200 | <haskellbridge> | <Solid> So sticking to it sounds more than advisable (and there have already been capable compositors written on top of it, making me doubt that it's "too limiting" in any real sense) |
| 2023-10-23 12:40:56 +0200 | <haskellbridge> | <Tranquil Ity> I don't think that seems to be the author's goal as it currently stands, from the way they approach things |
| 2023-10-23 12:42:10 +0200 | <liskin> | I'd expect the "xmonad on Wayland" efforts to start by creating a prototype, and I haven't seen a good argument why using wlroots in said prototype is a bad idea |
| 2023-10-23 12:42:51 +0200 | <liskin> | One might alternatively do the prototype by just taking an existing compositor and plugging xmonad logic in it, but that just means using Weston or mutter or kwin |
| 2023-10-23 12:43:07 +0200 | <liskin> | Still rather high-level stuff. There's no place for low-level in the first prototype |
| 2023-10-23 12:46:34 +0200 | <haskellbridge> | <Tranquil Ity> I too think a prototype is a good place to start, and I don't think abstraction has a place in a prototype unless the underlying low level stuff is that much more difficult. |
| 2023-10-23 12:49:33 +0200 | <haskellbridge> | <Solid> Increasing the maintenance burden to exorbitant levels at the very start certainly does not sound like a good idea |
| 2023-10-23 12:49:49 +0200 | <haskellbridge> | <Solid> Not to mention this would be *yet another* implementation that applications would have to support (if it ever came to that) |
| 2023-10-23 12:50:00 +0200 | <haskellbridge> | <Solid> so… let's just use wlroots :) |
| 2023-10-23 12:50:41 +0200 | <haskellbridge> | <Tranquil Ity> Not sure I follow, not having a single main implementation is one of the design goals of wayland, that's why it's a protocol |
| 2023-10-23 12:51:41 +0200 | <haskellbridge> | <Solid> and I think that sucks :) |
| 2023-10-23 12:51:47 +0200 | <haskellbridge> | <Solid> but that's besides the point here |
| 2023-10-23 12:52:31 +0200 | <liskin> | Well applications shouldn't need to support it as long as we'd implement all the standard(-ish) protocols |
| 2023-10-23 12:52:44 +0200 | <haskellbridge> | <Tranquil Ity> Exactly |
| 2023-10-23 12:52:45 +0200 | <liskin> | The other arguments are enough on their own though |
| 2023-10-23 12:54:10 +0200 | td_ | (~td@i5387090e.versanet.de) (Ping timeout: 255 seconds) |
| 2023-10-23 12:55:03 +0200 | <haskellbridge> | <Tranquil Ity> I do not think they are, I don't think it's possible to evaluate the maintenance burden without having even a line of code, and I am more comfortable with using the least amount of abstractions as possible, as it makes things easier to debug and understand. |
| 2023-10-23 12:55:56 +0200 | <haskellbridge> | <Solid> I think the maintenance burden of having our own Wayland implementation vs.… not having that is fairly easy to evaluate |
| 2023-10-23 12:56:01 +0200 | td_ | (~td@i53870909.versanet.de) |
| 2023-10-23 12:56:19 +0200 | <haskellbridge> | <Solid> This is not really up for debate, tbh |
| 2023-10-23 12:57:02 +0200 | <haskellbridge> | <Tranquil Ity> How so? |
| 2023-10-23 13:04:12 +0200 | td_ | (~td@i53870909.versanet.de) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |
| 2023-10-23 13:04:29 +0200 | <haskellbridge> | <Solid> For all of the reasons alluded to above |
| 2023-10-23 13:05:24 +0200 | <haskellbridge> | <Tranquil Ity> Not sure I follow |
| 2023-10-23 13:06:18 +0200 | td_ | (~td@i53870916.versanet.de) |
| 2023-10-23 13:07:44 +0200 | thyriaen | (~thyriaen@2a01:aea0:dd4:7550:6245:cbff:fe9f:48b1) |
| 2023-10-23 13:19:02 +0200 | derfflinger | (~derffling@user/derfflinger) |
| 2023-10-23 14:03:45 +0200 | lambdabot | (~lambdabot@haskell/bot/lambdabot) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2023-10-23 14:05:03 +0200 | lambdabot | (~lambdabot@haskell/bot/lambdabot) |
| 2023-10-23 14:07:30 +0200 | defjam | (~defjam@2a02:c7e:2807:b900:50f8:a906:7e67:c666) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
| 2023-10-23 14:16:14 +0200 | defjam | (~defjam@2a02:c7e:2807:b900:d5a5:6ef4:28a8:2199) |
| 2023-10-23 14:18:56 +0200 | td_ | (~td@i53870916.versanet.de) (Ping timeout: 258 seconds) |
| 2023-10-23 14:20:38 +0200 | td_ | (~td@i5387090D.versanet.de) |
| 2023-10-23 15:06:40 +0200 | scaniatrucker | (~mindaugas@78-56-98-5.static.zebra.lt) |
| 2023-10-23 15:34:54 +0200 | defjam | (~defjam@2a02:c7e:2807:b900:d5a5:6ef4:28a8:2199) (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) |
| 2023-10-23 15:47:05 +0200 | defjam | (~defjam@2a02:c7e:2807:b900:d5a5:6ef4:28a8:2199) |
| 2023-10-23 15:51:19 +0200 | defjam | (~defjam@2a02:c7e:2807:b900:d5a5:6ef4:28a8:2199) (Ping timeout: 258 seconds) |
| 2023-10-23 16:21:12 +0200 | defjam | (~defjam@2a02:c7e:2807:b900:d5a5:6ef4:28a8:2199) |
| 2023-10-23 16:28:35 +0200 | defjam | (~defjam@2a02:c7e:2807:b900:d5a5:6ef4:28a8:2199) (Ping timeout: 255 seconds) |
| 2023-10-23 16:42:09 +0200 | defjam | (~defjam@2a02:c7e:2807:b900:d5a5:6ef4:28a8:2199) |
| 2023-10-23 16:47:48 +0200 | defjam | (~defjam@2a02:c7e:2807:b900:d5a5:6ef4:28a8:2199) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) |
| 2023-10-23 16:59:44 +0200 | defjam | (~defjam@2a02:c7e:2807:b900:d5a5:6ef4:28a8:2199) |
| 2023-10-23 17:06:01 +0200 | defjam | (~defjam@2a02:c7e:2807:b900:d5a5:6ef4:28a8:2199) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) |
| 2023-10-23 17:17:40 +0200 | defjam | (~defjam@2a02:c7e:2807:b900:d5a5:6ef4:28a8:2199) |
| 2023-10-23 17:23:29 +0200 | defjam | (~defjam@2a02:c7e:2807:b900:d5a5:6ef4:28a8:2199) (Ping timeout: 255 seconds) |
| 2023-10-23 17:26:50 +0200 | defjam | (~defjam@2a02:c7e:2807:b900:d5a5:6ef4:28a8:2199) |
| 2023-10-23 17:32:56 +0200 | defjam | (~defjam@2a02:c7e:2807:b900:d5a5:6ef4:28a8:2199) (Ping timeout: 255 seconds) |
| 2023-10-23 17:42:33 +0200 | derfflinger | (~derffling@user/derfflinger) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2023-10-23 17:44:35 +0200 | defjam | (~defjam@2a02:c7e:2807:b900:d5a5:6ef4:28a8:2199) |
| 2023-10-23 17:50:15 +0200 | defjam | (~defjam@2a02:c7e:2807:b900:d5a5:6ef4:28a8:2199) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) |
| 2023-10-23 17:55:19 +0200 | thyriaen | (~thyriaen@2a01:aea0:dd4:7550:6245:cbff:fe9f:48b1) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2023-10-23 18:02:04 +0200 | defjam | (~defjam@2a02:c7e:2807:b900:d5a5:6ef4:28a8:2199) |
| 2023-10-23 18:08:02 +0200 | defjam | (~defjam@2a02:c7e:2807:b900:d5a5:6ef4:28a8:2199) (Ping timeout: 255 seconds) |
| 2023-10-23 18:18:11 +0200 | chomwitt | (~chomwitt@2a02:587:7a1a:8700:1ac0:4dff:fedb:a3f1) |
| 2023-10-23 18:20:49 +0200 | defjam | (~defjam@2a02:c7e:2807:b900:d5a5:6ef4:28a8:2199) |
| 2023-10-23 20:06:04 +0200 | defjam | (~defjam@2a02:c7e:2807:b900:d5a5:6ef4:28a8:2199) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |
| 2023-10-23 20:11:57 +0200 | defjam | (~defjam@2a02:c7e:2807:b900:d5a5:6ef4:28a8:2199) |
| 2023-10-23 20:27:25 +0200 | defjam | (~defjam@2a02:c7e:2807:b900:d5a5:6ef4:28a8:2199) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |
| 2023-10-23 20:30:22 +0200 | defjam | (~defjam@2a02:c7e:2807:b900:d5a5:6ef4:28a8:2199) |
| 2023-10-23 20:31:48 +0200 | scaniatrucker | (~mindaugas@78-56-98-5.static.zebra.lt) (Quit: Konversation terminated!) |
| 2023-10-23 23:17:51 +0200 | DangerBird | (~DangerBir@dhcp-v060-240.mobile.uci.edu) |
| 2023-10-23 23:18:19 +0200 | DangerBird | (~DangerBir@dhcp-v060-240.mobile.uci.edu) (Client Quit) |
| 2023-10-23 23:38:12 +0200 | ft | (~ft@p4fc2a529.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) |