On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 12:12:12PM -0500, Brian wrote: > It would seem that the other "major" DE's and application > developers aren't following the XSM standard from your comment and > instead are developing toward Wayland. In your opinion Is that the case > or is it that systemd and Wayland are now supporting the application > window and session management? Inquiring newbie minds would like to > know, because at some point I believe FVWM will need to address the > Wayland Server integration issue and would that then support session
Wayland has nothing to do with session management. The change FVWM would have to go through is to be DBus aware, since this seems to be the way the DE session managers are going; although I consider this a pointless change. I'm also rather cynical of the need for session management these days. In the days of olde, this was a way of reducing the overhead of starting applications. But given EWMH and the fact most applications now remember their geometry, and the fact that computing power is greater, I think it's all rather becoming moot. > management? In other words, is it true that FVWM development has > decided to not develop with Wayland in mind, or is it a matter of the > GNU/Linux distribution will need to provide the Wayland server with X > support so that FVWM will continue to function? Or is FVWM going to So there's always going to be a compatibility layer between X and Wayland, assuming Wayland is something which ever replaces X11; dubious about that, to be honest. > take the approach of Lumina and try to make the calls to hardware > directly, bypassing X and Wayland servers? FVWM would be a different beast on top of Wayland; not least of which with CSD (Client-side Decorations) and compositing, for instance. I even foresee a lot of FVWM's functionality becoming redundant on top of Wayland. FVWM currently is a museum piece on X11-handling, showcasing a number of special cases for troublesome applications, the likes of which aren't catered for in other window managers. A lot of this wouldn't be required. -- Thomas Adam
