XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
 

rewrite: In one of the never ending posts on how to get X* onto sailfish/jolla we learned it is actually lipstick that has to have XWayland support, not jut someone porting X app and hoping it will get ignored like other warehouse apps. Since all projects that are currently supporting wayland are already 1.4(1.5), can we get a firm declaration from Jolla when lipstick will support those? Selling a linux phone that cannot run 99.99% of linux apps because 1. too edgy for us (uses X, we are so edgy with old wayland), 2. software is too edgy, because anyone following wayland development is already at 1.4 (1.5) while jolla's 1.1 sucks balls and gives us maybe .1% of existing apps (that are still developed), when is this linux phone really gonna be linux phone??? I expect 'make' to work to call it a linux phone, if neo900 provides this awesome, if Jolla keeps using the term linux how about some linux compatibility?

Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
 

Its been stated many times that Jolla will _not_ be doing XWayland support and if someone wants it (cripled user experience with crappy X11 UI) then community needs to do the needed integration themselves.

Lipstick and wayland are OSS projects (https://github.com/nemomobile/lipstick) feel free to make pull requests there.

Personally I never want to see X11 apps in a phone, let those crappy UI apps remain in desktop only env.

Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
 

Thanks, it seems that community has to port LibreOffice (works on Raspberry Pi http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...3&postcount=33), FreOffice, Koffice, even Gnumeric, because really it is a matter of taste, and not being part of linux/open source and usability/availability
EDIT: I'm going to assume those "stated many times" is the reply that was finally posted to the TJC thread about XWayland, judging by the timestamp on emails you should've used future tense as the TMO reply was faster

Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
 

Well, I wouldn't be this outright negative - there are many specialized X applications that are unlikely to be made Wayland compatible in the near future (they are using xlib directly or a Wayland incompatible GUI toolkit, such as GTK2) or ever (dead usptream & complicated codebase), so it would be nice to be able to run them on Wayland somehow. The end result might not be as fast and elegant as running on Wayland natively, but something is better than nothing in this case. :)

Also Wayland does not yet have anything like X forwarding, which might be another usecase for having some support for X (I use X forwarding quite heavily on my desktop PCs for apps like Xchat, Thunderbird, Geany, etc.).

Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
 

Lets see last year for example on quick search:

http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...&postcount=391

And there ware various other posts regarding xwayland beeing community only task. I only posted it again on together just to make it obvious if someone has not been reading TMO threads..

Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
 

Only in theory as wayland is so old in Jolla that . Even active wayland supporting projects like mplayer are not possible on Jolla as they default to 1.4 Wayland, so thanks

Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
 

Better something old and stable than something new and crashing. :)

Why not just use an Android X server to render the UI for those desktop applications? The UI experience would already be so awful on a phone's screen that it can't get any worse with that solution, can it? ;)

Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
 

Sailfish interface is completely different from traditional desktop toolkits (GTK+ and Qt Widgets). So all apps for Sailfish should be written in Qt Quick to look native. Qt Quick apps support Wayland so there aren't special reasons to support XWayland.

I can't say that I like it, I would prefer have new Maemo with classic toolkits and all modern technologies - but now we have only Sailfish.

Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
 

Newer Wayland is easy for you to achieve by yourself without breaking anything (as it's backwards compatible). Update it, test it out, and submit a pull request at https://github.com/mer-packages/wayland when you're comfortable about the quality.

There's a very finite number of people working on these things, and the people working on them tend to prioritize things that give the biggest "bang for buck", which unfortunately for you, is not anything related to X. It's simply not something that the vast majority of customers want, as far as I've been able to tell.

That doesn't mean that those people won't work with you and support, publicize, and encourage your work - it just means they won't do it for you.

It's not like there's a conspiracy to hold the version back, either. It's a case of what was there previously working well enough to not require touching, up until a QtWayland upgrade (required to provide other ongoing work/fixes) bumped the minimum version, so I bumped it too.

Re: XWayland doable from user side or jolla required?
 

Javispedro working on XWayland for Sailfish OS :
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ByFK4iBCEAANE6Z.png
"slightly backported to work on current jolla's wayland and without any acceleration nor input so far"
:cool: