Global hotkey handling, copy and paste, screenshots, etc are part of the protocol but need to be implemented by every compositor. X is better for this; the server handles all of this and delegates window management to the WM.
You’re not making an apples-to-apples comparison, the x protocol does not do ANY of those things, the x server does, you’re comparing an implementation of a protocol to a protocol… and then saying the protocol should magically just do it, even though that isn’t the purpose of a protocol in the first place. The only difference in this case is that there’s just one serious implementation of xorg because it sucks to work with so much that nobody else will do it, this is actually just a knock AGAINST x.org that you view as a win because standardization, in practice, it doesn’t matter at all.
the more correct comparison would be x.org to wlroots, which does most of them (global shortcuts is being worked on still) or smithay.
Maybe someday in the future everything will standardize around wlroots or smithay, but the fact that they haven’t is because it’s so relatively easy to make a wayland compositor from scratch that the need for standardization is tiny. Gnome and KDE wrote their implementations BEFORE smithay and wlroots existed, and hyprland came along and did it basically on their own from scratch… a feat that could have NEVER been accomplished with x.org, as evidenced by the fact that nobody has rewritten it in rust or whatever.
Essentially you’re saying they “have” to implement it themselves, when in reality, they GET TO implement it themselves if they want to, because the design is so much better.
If they don’t WANT to, smithay and wlroots are there for you to use. It was a deliberate choice by those teams to make and maintain their own thing, if somebody wanted to do that with x.org, there’s literally no reason they couldn’t, the x.org server doesn’t prevent this in any way, and even if it did, would that really be a strength? Your argument just fundamentally doesn’t make sense if you actually understand these things.
I think you should double-check what I linked to: To the xdg desktop protocols, that’s a dbus thing, it’s not a wayland extension much less the core wayland protocol. It’s the same protocol flatpack apps use to do stuff, figures that APIs that are useful if you’re in a sandbox are useful in general.
X does not handle global hotkeys. It gives everyone full access to everything and then expects them to not fight for control, which took decades to actually happen, before that the desktop would often break down as clients were fighting. Any client can warp the pointer, capture all keys, watch how you enter a password in another window, say it’s the one which should be on top of all the others, it’s a nightmare.
Judging by the types of misunderstanding you have I must assume that you’ve never written a single line of X or wayland related code. Know, therefore, that you are completely unqualified to hold the opinion you have, much less hold it strongly.
Global hotkey handling, copy and paste, screenshots, etc are part of the protocol but need to be implemented by every compositor. X is better for this; the server handles all of this and delegates window management to the WM.
You’re not making an apples-to-apples comparison, the x protocol does not do ANY of those things, the x server does, you’re comparing an implementation of a protocol to a protocol… and then saying the protocol should magically just do it, even though that isn’t the purpose of a protocol in the first place. The only difference in this case is that there’s just one serious implementation of xorg because it sucks to work with so much that nobody else will do it, this is actually just a knock AGAINST x.org that you view as a win because standardization, in practice, it doesn’t matter at all.
the more correct comparison would be x.org to wlroots, which does most of them (global shortcuts is being worked on still) or smithay.
Maybe someday in the future everything will standardize around wlroots or smithay, but the fact that they haven’t is because it’s so relatively easy to make a wayland compositor from scratch that the need for standardization is tiny. Gnome and KDE wrote their implementations BEFORE smithay and wlroots existed, and hyprland came along and did it basically on their own from scratch… a feat that could have NEVER been accomplished with x.org, as evidenced by the fact that nobody has rewritten it in rust or whatever.
Essentially you’re saying they “have” to implement it themselves, when in reality, they GET TO implement it themselves if they want to, because the design is so much better.
If they don’t WANT to, smithay and wlroots are there for you to use. It was a deliberate choice by those teams to make and maintain their own thing, if somebody wanted to do that with x.org, there’s literally no reason they couldn’t, the x.org server doesn’t prevent this in any way, and even if it did, would that really be a strength? Your argument just fundamentally doesn’t make sense if you actually understand these things.
I think you should double-check what I linked to: To the xdg desktop protocols, that’s a dbus thing, it’s not a wayland extension much less the core wayland protocol. It’s the same protocol flatpack apps use to do stuff, figures that APIs that are useful if you’re in a sandbox are useful in general.
X does not handle global hotkeys. It gives everyone full access to everything and then expects them to not fight for control, which took decades to actually happen, before that the desktop would often break down as clients were fighting. Any client can warp the pointer, capture all keys, watch how you enter a password in another window, say it’s the one which should be on top of all the others, it’s a nightmare.
Judging by the types of misunderstanding you have I must assume that you’ve never written a single line of X or wayland related code. Know, therefore, that you are completely unqualified to hold the opinion you have, much less hold it strongly.