[j16sdiz]

Many of those restriction in wayland were by design. Lots of simple task is seen as privileged and restricted to the window manager. These restriction may (or may not) make sense for native wayland application.

However, for wine, as a compatible layer with windows, every deviation from windows behavior is seen as a missing feature.

I am not sure if constantly creating artificial restriction and working around them is "moving forward".

[vlovich123]

If the restriction is about improving real security issues and people are doing that work for free, then isn’t it worth it? In fact, if I were an open-source project myself and someone is willing to go through the legwork of supporting doing the migration of my codebase to a newer piece of tech, I should be encouraging it and the only thing I get to enforce is quality for it being a default and no substantial regressions when not using that new tech (or I can accept some regressions if I think the value provided is better). So if XWayland is better then fine. But someone has to keep putting maintenance resources into it. The Wayland folks shouldn’t be putting any resources into it when they think they’ve reasonably addressed any real technical blockers and then they should ask for the distro maintainers to remove it because they don’t want to maintain it anymore. The distro owners can donate maintenance cycles or $$ if XWayland is a sufficient experience in terms of providing the perf, DX and security that projects they care about need. Cooler projects with more attention will naturally obtain more dev cycles from talented engineers anyway.

[sprash]

The work is not done for free. It is done by consultant agencies like Collabora with full time paid developers. It is just unclear who funds them.

And no, it's not worth it. The amount of regressions are high compared to the rather questionable security benefits.

[vlovich123]

“For free” meaning from the perspective of Wine. The project isn’t using its own funds to pay for this.