Comment by ulrikrasmussen
10 hours ago
For me, TUIs compensate for the fact that I can't get good remote GUI rendering on Linux. Yes, X11 tunneling exists, but the experience has always been abysmal for me for anything not hosted on a machine that sits on the same LAN as the client. For Wayland I don't even know if such a thing is possible since I don't think the architecture supports it.
But the terminal is just fundamentally the wrong basic abstraction on which to build a structured GUI, it just happens to require few enough bits to be sent over the wire that it actually works reasonably well over SSH as opposed to pushing graphics.
> Yes, X11 tunneling exists, but the experience has always been abysmal for me for anything not hosted on a machine that sits on the same LAN as the client.
I have used X11 tunnelling to machines on the other side of Europe and it was OK. I did prefer ssh for responsiveness. What happened to NX? What about other remote desktops?
> For Wayland I don't even know if such a thing is possible since I don't think the architecture supports it.
Not only forwarding is trivial with Wayland, it also tends to provide better experience than X11 does.
I have never tried it until now, and I hadn't looked into it. But I just tried `waypipe ssh` to a remote server I have for doing asynchronous Claude work in VMs, and it actually works pretty great! Maybe I'll switch to that for my emacs/magit setup, the lack of clipboard integration when running emacs in a terminal over ssh is enough of an argument for me.
Edit: yikes, pressing M-w caused emacs-pgtk to crash with a Wayland protocol error, so it isn't trivial and requires some configuring I guess.
Edit 2: Apparently I have to install wl-clipboard and write a bunch of emacs lisp to work around this. I don't think I have the patience for that, and I fear that such problems will be even harder to solve for applications which are not as flexible and programmable as emacs. So far I'll conclude that remote Wayland is not ready and stick to TUI.
Edit 3: No, the problem is probably mismatched waypipe versions on client and server. Still not fun.
[flagged]
Did you just invent a non-existent core Wayland developer and attack them for things they didn't say? I am all up for shitting on modern software stacks and praise the Unix philosophy, but I am really turned off by posts trying to make this a question about gender identity and generation, as if that has anything to do with it. Old cis-dudes come up with bad software architectures too.
Sorry, but it is kind of a generational thing. If you grew up in an environment where one set of assumptions always held, you are more likely to think that these assumptions are universals and just not even bother with the possibility that they might not be the case. This goes double if you're young; even bright young devs often have not had the breadth or depth of experience to consider that that crusty old protocol they're trying to get rid of due to "legacy cruft" is the way it is for a reason, one which is still reflected in the use cases of real users working today. This has direct bearing on the Wayland situation: one of the reasons why Wayland is having trouble getting traction against X11 is because the Wayland devs have lost sight of the fact that Wayland is designed to solve one set of problems and X11 another.
And real Wayland developers have made the exact argument I attributed to my fictional one, just with fewer anime emoticons (and "watch this talk by Daniel Stone" as a final mic drop).
1 reply →