Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Is there a way to implement systray in wayland w/o dbus? (Read 5277 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Is there a way to implement systray in wayland w/o dbus?

Reply #15 –
Quote from: gripped – on
Quote from: mrbrklyn – on
To me, this just sounds like another reason not to have wayland.  Why is this watered down, feature deficient software being forced on the community.  For a new thing, it is a major step backwards and devoid of anything modern or particularly useful.  It is neutered.
I completely agree.
16 years old now and still doesn't work. In my most humble opinion.

I am holding out and using X as long as it is possible. 16 years and still not ready is quite honestly a joke.

Re: Is there a way to implement systray in wayland w/o dbus?

Reply #16 –
Quote from: rayburn – on
I am holding out and using X as long as it is possible. 16 years and still not ready is quite honestly a joke.
I see wayland as a slight drift towards the IOSification of Linux. "Lock it all down, The users can't be trusted"
Can't do this, can't do that. "Security!" so important that things you can do easily in X are either impossible in wayland or need shims and/or proxies to function on wayland.
Along with the KDE insistence that you can't run Dolphin or Kate as root unless you patch them (I do).

As far as I'm concerned if malware has managed to run as my user I've already lost and having it snoop on X programs makes little difference.

I try wayland now and then just to remind myself why I don't want to use it.
I used to worry that X would cease to be but I don't think it's happening for a long time now.

Re: Is there a way to implement systray in wayland w/o dbus?

Reply #17 –
Quote from: gripped – on
I see wayland as a slight drift towards the IOSification of Linux. "Lock it all down, The users can't be trusted"
Can't do this, can't do that. "Security!" so important that things you can do easily in X are either impossible in wayland or need shims and/or proxies to function on wayland.
And then they say `dbus`

Quote from: gripped – on
I try wayland now and then just to remind myself why I don't want to use it.
I used to worry that X would cease to be but I don't think it's happening for a long time now.
I can only hope on that. But the deprecation from mesa is worrying af

There is however just one thing in wayland which i liked: nested compositors. It's similar to XEmbed but isn't a separate protocol which application has to support. As zathura started to work bad with tabbed several versions ago, this could be a solution. And you don't actually need to run wayland session to use it, it can be run from X as well.
ARMtix
If you need to contact me, use email

Re: Is there a way to implement systray in wayland w/o dbus?

Reply #18 –
This is all stressing me out.  I look at all of this and I wonder where our future is.  We are increasingly dependent on these digital devices for day to day living and they are increasingly out of our control, insecure and beyond private ownership.  40 years almost of promoting Free software and it all seems to be a colossal bust.

And then Pottering et al can't understand why the reaction to systemd was so virulent.

Re: Is there a way to implement systray in wayland w/o dbus?

Reply #19 –
Honestly, trying to have a desktop without all the dbus, *kits, logind and other stuff from freedesktop, well, that train has left the station years ago. It already has become hard to impossible to remove it. It is in my view a lost battle to fight, all that can be done is hold out in a niche fringe corner. That said, I haven't liked the desktop direction linux took for years.

Re: Is there a way to implement systray in wayland w/o dbus?

Reply #20 –
Quote from: artoo – on
Honestly, trying to have a desktop without all the dbus, *kits, logind and other stuff from freedesktop, well, that train has left the station years ago.
Aren't we here to show they're wrong? Init, logind and udev parts of systemd can be replaced while keeping most of the system operational. The system loses a bit of fancy stuff, but functionality does not suffer much usually. Dbus is perhaps the most complicated to get rid of, but that's not impossible. Depends on what fancyness you are ready to trade off (like systray i mentioned), but still keeps system operational.
ARMtix
If you need to contact me, use email

Re: Is there a way to implement systray in wayland w/o dbus?

Reply #21 –
Quote from: phoenix_king_rus – on
Quote from: artoo – on
Honestly, trying to have a desktop without all the dbus, *kits, logind and other stuff from freedesktop, well, that train has left the station years ago.
Aren't we here to show they're wrong? Init, logind and udev parts of systemd can be replaced while keeping most of the system operational. The system loses a bit of fancy stuff, but functionality does not suffer much usually. Dbus is perhaps the most complicated to get rid of, but that's not impossible. Depends on what fancyness you are ready to trade off (like systray i mentioned), but still keeps system operational.


I am way past to point trying to smash my head through a brickwall.
Its fine people try to remove every last component, but in actual terms, any major desktop becomes sort of second class citizen if you remove it all. These work only partially without all the stuff.

Re: Is there a way to implement systray in wayland w/o dbus?

Reply #22 –
Quote from: artoo – on
Honestly, trying to have a desktop without all the dbus, *kits, logind and other stuff from freedesktop, well, that train has left the station years ago. It already has become hard to impossible to remove it. It is in my view a lost battle to fight, all that can be done is hold out in a niche fringe corner. That said, I haven't liked the desktop direction linux took for years.


I don't think it is really a bad idea to have a univeral IPC mechanism such as dbus, but in this case, they are stripping X of its inherent ability to do this and forcing the crippleware on the public in the form of wayland.  What really angers me is the stripping of networking from the interface.  X11 could run a program from anywhere in the world and display it like it is a local application.   That is a powerful tool that has not nearly been exploited enough.  Instead of using X we are trying to stuff everything through a browser and with jsom.  That is increasing security?  I think not.

Imagine running your banking ap by making an ssh connection directly to the banks infrastructure and remotely running the backing program ON THERE server and displaying it on your client box.  Not only is that more secure, but there is nothing to install on the  client box.  It is running on the server in real time.

My kids used to do this all the time, and play the game crossfire off my main workstation from their bedrooms. 

Re: Is there a way to implement systray in wayland w/o dbus?

Reply #23 –
Quote from: mrbrklyn – on
Quote from: artoo – on
Honestly, trying to have a desktop without all the dbus, *kits, logind and other stuff from freedesktop, well, that train has left the station years ago. It already has become hard to impossible to remove it. It is in my view a lost battle to fight, all that can be done is hold out in a niche fringe corner. That said, I haven't liked the desktop direction linux took for years.


I don't think it is really a bad idea to have a univeral IPC mechanism such as dbus, but in this case, they are stripping X of its inherent ability to do this and forcing the crippleware on the public in the form of wayland.  What really angers me is the stripping of networking from the interface.  X11 could run a program from anywhere in the world and display it like it is a local application.   That is a powerful tool that has not nearly been exploited enough.  Instead of using X we are trying to stuff everything through a browser and with jsom.  That is increasing security?  I think not.

X has its very own design flaws, and I agree with the general idea to replace X with something that doesn't have these flaws. But thats where the common ground with wayland ends.
A dbus IPC like thing is also not a bad idea, and I don't know if people know what a disaster kdbus had been if it would have been implemented upstream in kernel. Luckily, it was refused.

Re: Is there a way to implement systray in wayland w/o dbus?

Reply #24 –
Quote from: artoo – on
A dbus IPC like thing is also not a bad idea, and I don't know if people know what a disaster kdbus had been if it would have been implemented upstream in kernel. Luckily, it was refused.
Back in the day when they were pushing for kdbus, someone in the Gentoo forums was arguing that everything dbus does could be accomplished more reasonably using TIPC, which already existed (and still does) in the kernel. Now, I don't really know anything about TIPC, but the claim that the creators of (k)dbus were just reinventing something poorly sounds quite plausible.

Re: Is there a way to implement systray in wayland w/o dbus?

Reply #25 –
according to https://docs.kernel.org/networking/tipc.html TIPC is network oriented so probably not the same as d-bus in scope.

Re: Is there a way to implement systray in wayland w/o dbus?

Reply #26 –
Quote from: replabrobin – on
according to https://docs.kernel.org/networking/tipc.html TIPC is network oriented so probably not the same as d-bus in scope.


Quote
Have you ever wished you had the convenience of Unix Domain Sockets even when transmitting data between cluster nodes?

That is interesting for clusters... not much of anything for a stand alone system.

I will note though that UDS Unix Domain Sockets is a built in kernel level means of IPC.

https://thelinuxcode.com/unix-domain-socket-usage/

https://www.baeldung.com/linux/unix-domain-socket-create

I have no doubt that the Free Desktop crazies just love to reinvent the wheel and move kernel space activities to users space,

FWIW

https://discourse.flathub.org/t/what-does-finish-args-x11-without-ipc-mean-and-how-do-you-fix-it/3279

https://www.x.org/wiki/guide/communication/