[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openbox
Subject:    [openbox] Openbox and Wayland
From:       zoqaeski () gmail ! com (Robbie Smith)
Date:       2013-02-17 9:04:00
Message-ID: 51209D00.7090109 () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 17/02/13 14:34, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 18:18:31 +1100
> Robbie Smith <zoqaeski at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Robbie> Now that Wayland is at 1.0, is there any information on how it
> Robbie> might integrate with existing window managers like Openbox? I
> Robbie> know that some aspects of Wayland might make WMs and DEs
> Robbie> obsolete because it?s a completely different model to X11, but I
> Robbie> like Openbox quite a lot.  The big DEs just don?t cut it for me,
> Robbie> as AFAIK they don?t allow me to have complex fine-tuned
> Robbie> configurations.
>
> Robbie> I read a while back that the primary author behind Wayland was
> Robbie> proposing that the simple (example?) compositor be developed
> Robbie> into a plugin architecture that existing window managers could
> Robbie> tap into, but this was several months ago now. Has any progress
> Robbie> on this been made?
>
> +1
>
> I would be most interested in any information along these lines, too.
> Though I figure there will be many other reasons for me to stick with X
> and resist Wayland as long as I can :-P
>
Wayland showed up as a dependency on my Arch system during an update the 
other day, so it?s definitely on its way. Given X?s longevity I think 
it?ll still be around in 10 years from now, even if only on legacy systems.

 From what I know of Wayland, it sounds like a brilliant idea. I just 
don?t want to lose my custom lightweight setup: you get quite attached 
to a mind-blowing number of keybindings, which I can?t replicate 
anywhere else.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]