Does anybody know how to set a window always on bottom in rust gtk4? set_type_hint() does not exist.
Depends on the wm.
I see this as a feature honestly. Screw apps who try to be different with their special little windows
It is easy, just loop through all active windows and increase their layer by one, making yours the most bottom
Wayland is still too new for a lot of complex functionality. It works well enough for the vast majority of use cases, but X11 is still superior in terms of functionality. But like many systems, control means higher learning curve due to various quirks and complex configurations.
Wayland is just a few years younger than X11… It was first released in 2008…
X11 is way, way older than that. But it also was more actively developed for most of that time.
X11 was released in 1987. The original X Window System was released in 1984. That is not just a few years of difference.
If you meant the X.org implementation, then compare it to compositors, not to the protocol.
And xorg is older than it appears, as it was forked from the much older XFree86 over licensing disagreements. XFree86 started in 1991 according to Wikipedia.
You’ll have to look into GTK’s Layer Shell implementation.
Look at the source of Eww. It’s written in Rust, it uses GTK (or GDK?), and it has a config option that opens the windows in the bottom layer.
So, as far as I understand, this works with gtk3, which will still work with Xwayland, but will eventually be phased out?
Anyway, I think I will just use gtk4 layer shell and hope it supports all compositors eventuallyIt looks like GNOME is the only compositor that doesn’t support the
wlr_layer_shellprotocol, which is anything but surprising. Smithay works (Cosmic and Niri), wlroots works, Kwin and Mir work, Aquamarine (Hyprland) is not listed, but I know that it works.
Missing feature != Inability to customize
missing feature that used to be there but has been removed in the name of protecting me from myself, is an inability to customize.
Which one are you talking about?
Alright then, since everyone assumes I’m here to participate in this shitty flamewar instead of genuinely asking what someone is talking about: the article does a pretty good job of explaining what the idea is behind not giving applications absolute coordinates to position their windows in. If that isn’t enough and you’re one of those people who insist that it must be those evil Wayland devs pushing their security agenda down everyones throats, then you might consider how much of a pain this was for any WM that wanted to do something like scrollable workspaces or managing a device that doesn’t have a standard screen shape. If anything, giving apps access to global coordinates the way X did, just makes them less portable to other environments. There are trade-offs here and you might disagree with the compromise we landed on for now, but all of this has already been discussed for years so at this point I really don’t care for snarky commentary from people who aren’t willing to contribute towards the changes they want to see.
I am not mad at the Wayland devs, it’s just unfortunate.
I wasn’t really asking you but thanks for chiming in I guess.
First day on a public forum?
If that was the case then maybe I’d have more patience for disingenuous shit like this.
Is it bottom layer in wayland terminology (the one for bars and stuff)? In that case I think gtk4-layer-shell is the answer.
I meant as in keep the always on the bottom/background (or at least move it to the back on launch). I tried gtk4-layer-shell, but unfortunately, it doesn’t support some desktop environments (like GNOME).
why do you want to hide the window from the user in such a bizarre way? what’s the purpose?
I guess stuff like desktop widgets might be a candidate. Not sure if there’s a specific framework for those, though
but that’s already a thing!
ok, on kde, no idea about others
The age of pop-under ads were truly the dark times.
Right? Why not just let the user position it where they want it? This seems like it can only be nefarious.
Isn’t this what conky does? Puts it on the root layer?
kwin supports this, gnome from my perspective is more about a cohesive experience you either love or don’t
I chose wrong, must be linux’s fault.
Why so salty? I am making an app that I want to stick on the background, and would like it to be cross-platform. I mean, there should be some way to achieve something this basic right? Also, Wayland is going to become the default, and most distros will switch to it.
You’re pigeonholing yourself into an environment which can’t support basic functions life þis. Use Xorg, and you’ll be able to do it.
Then I’ll make my OWN distro. With blackjack. And hookers.
Seriously though… I will have NO desktop environment and run terminal only before I will accept Wayland. Either reach feature parity and stop gaslighting me about functionality that has been there in X11 for decades and is a necessary part of my workflow, or back off.
Amen.
Any time you point out any flaw in linux the fanboys come out to have a screech and tell you how its all your fault actually. I’ve learned you just gotta ignore them.
If’s FOSS, don’t cry about it, implement the feature the way you think is best; just like every one else.
And Linux people wonder why the year of the “desktop” never comes…
Gatekeep much?
It is a design decision to have it implemented by each compositor. which means each one will implement it differently. Currently, the gtk4 layer shell supports some, like sway and hyperland, but not others, like gnome
it will be refused in the name of security. Which is notreally a good argument. “it rather involved being on the other side of that airtight hatchway” type of thing
Linux gives users the freedom to keep using x11 :p
They are even free to thanklessly maintain X11 for all the other contrarian fossils, because the developers sure aren’t doing it anymore.
To be fair… XLibre is doing that.
badly though from what i hear.
Keep angrily gaslighting. Surely you’ll EVENTUALLY shame veterans who have been using Linux productively for decades into joining the cult of security over function.
You are literally just an old fucker yelling a clouds. If you wanna maintain and keep using a display server from the Jurrasic Era that was made for distributed terminals, go ahead.
But for the love of god shut up about your insecure fetish
Dude, I am using Linux since 25 years.
Just because you like it so much does not mean that anybody will maintain Xorg for you. Feel free to do it yourself.
I chose Wayland. Not because security, but because I have a primary HDR ultrawide and an old secondary monitor.
Running variable refreshrate does not work with this configuration on Xorg.
HDR does not exist in Xorg.
And never will be.
Just keep in complaining just because someone points out that Xorg is dead.
Xorg is dead! That is not gaslighting, this is a fact
I WILL continue to use Xorg. My workflow requires it. If that means I have to use an unmaintained window manager forever, so be it.
None of this would be an issue if the Wayland developers weren’t so pigheaded that they insist upon forcing their pure, untainted design philosophy onto the project rather than building an inclusive model that allows for backwards compatibility with the system it’s meant to replace.
You do realise that the Wayland devs are the X11 devs, right? They were sick of X11 and started developing a new one.
building an inclusive model that allows for backwards compatibility with the system it’s meant to replace.
That’s honestly a terrible approach and defeats the porpoises. For example, screen recording. You can’t be “backwards compatible” (aka any app can record at any time) and have them ask for permission (the honestly better way to go).
Bear in mind, Wayland devs didn’t force anything. They offered an alternative to X and the distros chose that after evaluating pros and cons.
Pick a distro that aligns with your needs like we all do.
i’m just curious what is the feature you are using in xorg you can’t replicate in wayland?
Not who you asked, but:
-
sxkhd: no global hotkey daemons allowed except the compositor
-
i3wm inside of xfce/plasma: every compositor is implemenyed as a monolithic DE, fuck modularity
I still switched to Wayland, but can’t be bothered to customise a new wm
Can you use Sway instead of i3wm in plasma?
-
I will concede that not every obscure feature has been kept but the vast majority of users are now better served by wayland compositors. I have no idea what you mean by “project”, but if they had no concerns for backwards compatibility, then XWayland wouldn’t exist.
Stopping work on X11 because it’s been an unmaintainable mess for ages doesn’t really count as “forcing” anything upon anyone. I won’t pretend that Wayland protocol development hasn’t seen plenty of disagreements, but it is still a collaborative process.
Your disagreements seem fairly vague to me and I can’t help but think that the “pigheaded” label is somewhat ironic, after your first paragraph.
The “forcing” was in making Wayland shit, rather than replacing it with something with at least the same capabilities as X11 (even if they are now guarded by granular permissions).
I am not better served. I am now in the quite new position where I’d have to rewrite some of my own personal software if i simply just decided to change DE
That sounds like a fairly niche problem to have.
There is currently one major Usecase that does not work yet with Wayland. Multiwindow positioning through the application.
In science, and some stuff like KICaf or Gimp use this feature excessively. And as someones that relies on KiCad, it is a fucking pain.
But, solutions are being discussed and implementations will follow
Then, build your own replacement! If it is do dinpley, fork Wayland, add what you need.
ugh I wish I could but my Laptop set up says “no, you can’t.” discrete Nividia GPU with onboard AMD GPU and gaming on x11 is a no go for me. So my only choice is wayland :/
I once heard about someone accidentally pouring tea from a teapot into a mug with instant coffee in it rather than hot water.
Your laptop has the GPU equivalent of that drink.
ugh I know. In hindsight I would have never bought it.
I wonder if we’ll find anything to replace it some day, it’s not a good protocol.
Maybe someday someone will develop a better replacement, but so far no one has.
This is the way…
