to Wayland, when executed from a non-ARM machine running a X server (respectively Wayland server) with a unknown compositor[2], without `my-wayland-c-program` loading any compositor-specific code or resources (and preferably being statically linked[1], although statically linking xlib is admittedly also a pain in the ass[3]).
Things that are the responsibilty of the window manager, such as the title bar, close window button, and alt-space menu, need to work correctly on any compositor that supports them, without the application running any code related to those things.
If it was just having to run everything on the same machine, wayland would have to have conspicuously significant advantages (of which it has roughly none) to be worth the loss in functionality. Adding on per-compositor special-casing - especially when the suggested 'fix' is apparently for me to link per-compositor shitware into my applications to allegedly abstract away that special casing - means Wayland needs to die in a fire.
0: Regarding ssh -Y: yes, the lack of security-distrust between two pieces of hardware right in front of me, that I nominally trust and control, is intentional.
1: ie `file my-wayland-c-program` prints (emphasis added):
2: "unknown" as in the application doesn't know, and isn't going to find out, because it doesn't matter unless the application is `wl-print-compositor-name` or similar.
I'm not sure how to properly and (edit: semi-)concisely explain the problem except by example:
How do I translate[0]:
to Wayland, when executed from a non-ARM machine running a X server (respectively Wayland server) with a unknown compositor[2], without `my-wayland-c-program` loading any compositor-specific code or resources (and preferably being statically linked[1], although statically linking xlib is admittedly also a pain in the ass[3]).Things that are the responsibilty of the window manager, such as the title bar, close window button, and alt-space menu, need to work correctly on any compositor that supports them, without the application running any code related to those things.
If it was just having to run everything on the same machine, wayland would have to have conspicuously significant advantages (of which it has roughly none) to be worth the loss in functionality. Adding on per-compositor special-casing - especially when the suggested 'fix' is apparently for me to link per-compositor shitware into my applications to allegedly abstract away that special casing - means Wayland needs to die in a fire.
0: Regarding ssh -Y: yes, the lack of security-distrust between two pieces of hardware right in front of me, that I nominally trust and control, is intentional.
1: ie `file my-wayland-c-program` prints (emphasis added):
2: "unknown" as in the application doesn't know, and isn't going to find out, because it doesn't matter unless the application is `wl-print-compositor-name` or similar.