[gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[Dale]

Howdy,

I was doing my backups which includes config files.  I noticed one file
was shall we say, large.  The better term might be HUGE.  This is the
culprit. 



root@Gentoo-1 / # ls /home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 dale users 13,905,915,860 Sep 14 03:33
/home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log
root@Gentoo-1 / #



I added the commas to the file size.  Obviously one shouldn't try to
open a file that size with Kwrite or anything.  It's just to large. 
Heck, it took several minutes for the tail command to get this. 


root@Gentoo-1 / # tail -n 100 /home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log
Service  ":1.6973" unregistered
QSocketNotifier: Invalid socket 5 and type 'Read', disabling...
ark.kerfuffle: Could not detect mimetype from content. Using
extension-based mimetype: "text/x-log"
root@Gentoo-1 / #


As you can see, I asked for the last 100 lines but it only gave me
that.  Obviously something is off with that file and maybe sddm as well. 

First, I'd like to make that file MUCH smaller, empty would be OK. 
Second, I'd like to stop it from getting that big again.  I tried using
echo to make it only one line.  It went something like this. 


echo "" > /home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log


I thought it worked at first but by the time my backup script got to it,
it was back again, hugely back.  Now it doesn't do anything even though
I'm root.  I can't seem to empty this file or really see what is in it
either. 

Can someone share a better way to fix this file?  Oh, I googled.  The
info I found was people using systemd.  They used commands I don't have
since I use openrc. 

Thanks.
 
Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[Peter Humphrey]

On Sunday, 14 September 2025 09:56:09 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
> Howdy,
> 
> I was doing my backups which includes config files.  I noticed one file
> was shall we say, large.  The better term might be HUGE.  This is the
> culprit. 
> 
> 
> 
> root@Gentoo-1 / # ls /home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log
> -rw-r--r-- 1 dale users 13,905,915,860 Sep 14 03:33
> /home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log
> root@Gentoo-1 / #

Mine is 32K.
 
> I added the commas to the file size.  Obviously one shouldn't try to
> open a file that size with Kwrite or anything.  It's just to large. 
> Heck, it took several minutes for the tail command to get this. 
> 
> root@Gentoo-1 / # tail -n 100 /home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log
> Service  ":1.6973" unregistered
> QSocketNotifier: Invalid socket 5 and type 'Read', disabling...
> ark.kerfuffle: Could not detect mimetype from content. Using
> extension-based mimetype: "text/x-log"
> root@Gentoo-1 / #
> 
> As you can see, I asked for the last 100 lines but it only gave me
> that.  Obviously something is off with that file and maybe sddm as well. 
> 
> First, I'd like to make that file MUCH smaller, empty would be OK. 
> Second, I'd like to stop it from getting that big again.  I tried using
> echo to make it only one line.  It went something like this. 
> 
> echo "" > /home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log
> 
> I thought it worked at first but by the time my backup script got to it,
> it was back again, hugely back.  Now it doesn't do anything even though
> I'm root.  I can't seem to empty this file or really see what is in it
> either. 
> 
> Can someone share a better way to fix this file?  Oh, I googled.  The
> info I found was people using systemd.  They used commands I don't have
> since I use openrc. 

Why not just delete it? Then xorg will start afresh.

-- 
Regards,
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2518 bytes --]

On Sunday, 14 September 2025 10:39:53 British Summer Time Peter Humphrey 
wrote:
> On Sunday, 14 September 2025 09:56:09 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
> > Howdy,
> > 
> > I was doing my backups which includes config files.  I noticed one file
> > was shall we say, large.  The better term might be HUGE.  This is the
> > culprit.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > root@Gentoo-1 / # ls /home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log
> > -rw-r--r-- 1 dale users 13,905,915,860 Sep 14 03:33
> > /home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log
> > root@Gentoo-1 / #
> 
> Mine is 32K.

The size of this log file increases over time.  If you reboot/restart your 
desktop daily, the file will be overwritten and remain at a reasonable size - 
my wayland-session.log is currently ~ 165kB.

Dale does not reboot often, so the file will grow until it is deleted/rotated.


> > I added the commas to the file size.  Obviously one shouldn't try to
> > open a file that size with Kwrite or anything.  It's just to large.
> > Heck, it took several minutes for the tail command to get this.
> > 
> > root@Gentoo-1 / # tail -n 100
> > /home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log
> > Service  ":1.6973" unregistered
> > QSocketNotifier: Invalid socket 5 and type 'Read', disabling...
> > ark.kerfuffle: Could not detect mimetype from content. Using
> > extension-based mimetype: "text/x-log"
> > root@Gentoo-1 / #
> > 
> > As you can see, I asked for the last 100 lines but it only gave me
> > that.  Obviously something is off with that file and maybe sddm as well.
> > 
> > First, I'd like to make that file MUCH smaller, empty would be OK.
> > Second, I'd like to stop it from getting that big again.  I tried using
> > echo to make it only one line.  It went something like this.
> > 
> > echo "" > /home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log
> > 
> > I thought it worked at first but by the time my backup script got to it,
> > it was back again, hugely back.  Now it doesn't do anything even though
> > I'm root.  I can't seem to empty this file or really see what is in it
> > either.
> > 
> > Can someone share a better way to fix this file?  Oh, I googled.  The
> > info I found was people using systemd.  They used commands I don't have
> > since I use openrc.
> 
> Why not just delete it? Then xorg will start afresh.

You can automate the rotation of this file with logrotate.  Just add it in the 
logrotate.d/ directory and specify a maximum size you're happy with, e.g. 
"size 3M" and/or how long before it is rotated, e.g. "weekly".

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[Dale]

Michael wrote:
> On Sunday, 14 September 2025 10:39:53 British Summer Time Peter Humphrey 
> wrote:
>> On Sunday, 14 September 2025 09:56:09 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
>>> Howdy,
>>>
>>> I was doing my backups which includes config files.  I noticed one file
>>> was shall we say, large.  The better term might be HUGE.  This is the
>>> culprit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> root@Gentoo-1 / # ls /home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log
>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 dale users 13,905,915,860 Sep 14 03:33
>>> /home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log
>>> root@Gentoo-1 / #
>> Mine is 32K.
> The size of this log file increases over time.  If you reboot/restart your 
> desktop daily, the file will be overwritten and remain at a reasonable size - 
> my wayland-session.log is currently ~ 165kB.
>
> Dale does not reboot often, so the file will grow until it is deleted/rotated.
>

I logged out and back in when I finished my updates this morning.  It
was huge before I logged out and still huge when I logged back in.  It
seems it doesn't delete/rotate here for some reason.


>>> I added the commas to the file size.  Obviously one shouldn't try to
>>> open a file that size with Kwrite or anything.  It's just to large.
>>> Heck, it took several minutes for the tail command to get this.
>>>
>>> root@Gentoo-1 / # tail -n 100
>>> /home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log
>>> Service  ":1.6973" unregistered
>>> QSocketNotifier: Invalid socket 5 and type 'Read', disabling...
>>> ark.kerfuffle: Could not detect mimetype from content. Using
>>> extension-based mimetype: "text/x-log"
>>> root@Gentoo-1 / #
>>>
>>> As you can see, I asked for the last 100 lines but it only gave me
>>> that.  Obviously something is off with that file and maybe sddm as well.
>>>
>>> First, I'd like to make that file MUCH smaller, empty would be OK.
>>> Second, I'd like to stop it from getting that big again.  I tried using
>>> echo to make it only one line.  It went something like this.
>>>
>>> echo "" > /home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log
>>>
>>> I thought it worked at first but by the time my backup script got to it,
>>> it was back again, hugely back.  Now it doesn't do anything even though
>>> I'm root.  I can't seem to empty this file or really see what is in it
>>> either.
>>>
>>> Can someone share a better way to fix this file?  Oh, I googled.  The
>>> info I found was people using systemd.  They used commands I don't have
>>> since I use openrc.
>> Why not just delete it? Then xorg will start afresh.
> You can automate the rotation of this file with logrotate.  Just add it in the 
> logrotate.d/ directory and specify a maximum size you're happy with, e.g. 
> "size 3M" and/or how long before it is rotated, e.g. "weekly".


Honestly, if it is logging a problem that much, I'd like to know what it
is so I can fix it.  That way the log is a reasonable size and whatever
it is complaining about is fixed and working correctly as well. 

I did delete the file.  So far, it hasn't came back.  I'll try to
remember to look when I logout and back in next weekend after updates. 
If it does, I'll look into logrotate.  I haven't set up one of those in
ages.  :/ 

Still wonder what it is complaining so much about.  o_O

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2203 bytes --]

On Monday, 15 September 2025 07:54:59 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
> Michael wrote:

> > The size of this log file increases over time.  If you reboot/restart your
> > desktop daily, the file will be overwritten and remain at a reasonable
> > size - my wayland-session.log is currently ~ 165kB.
> > 
> > Dale does not reboot often, so the file will grow until it is
> > deleted/rotated.
> 
> I logged out and back in when I finished my updates this morning.  It
> was huge before I logged out and still huge when I logged back in.  It
> seems it doesn't delete/rotate here for some reason.

The reason must be you logged in a Wayland Plasma desktop, rather the Xserver 
desktop?


> > You can automate the rotation of this file with logrotate.  Just add it in
> > the logrotate.d/ directory and specify a maximum size you're happy with,
> > e.g. "size 3M" and/or how long before it is rotated, e.g. "weekly".
> 
> Honestly, if it is logging a problem that much, I'd like to know what it
> is so I can fix it.  That way the log is a reasonable size and whatever
> it is complaining about is fixed and working correctly as well. 
> 
> I did delete the file.  So far, it hasn't came back.  I'll try to
> remember to look when I logout and back in next weekend after updates. 
> If it does, I'll look into logrotate.  I haven't set up one of those in
> ages.  :/ 
> 
> Still wonder what it is complaining so much about.  o_O
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-) 

The sddm log can be quite chatty about non-critical warnings triggered by your 
desktop.  I just logged in an hour ago and my '.local/share/sddm/wayland-
session.log' is already 897 lines long.  It's getting filled up with warnings 
about plasmoids, missing files, etc. - e.g.:

file:///usr/share/plasma/plasmoids/org.kde.plasma.kickoff/contents/ui/
main.qml:310:13: QML Image: Cannot open: file:
///usr/share/plasma/plasmoids/org.kde.plasma.kickoff/contents/ui/start-here-
kde-symbolic
IFFChunk::innerFromDevice: unkwnown chunk "\x89PNG"
IFFChunk::innerFromDevice: unkwnown chunk "\x89PNG"
IFFChunk::innerFromDevice: unkwnown chunk "\x89PNG"
...

Since you restart your desktop rarely, setting up logrotate to deal with this 
log file would make sense.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[Dale]

Michael wrote:
> On Monday, 15 September 2025 07:54:59 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>>> The size of this log file increases over time.  If you reboot/restart your
>>> desktop daily, the file will be overwritten and remain at a reasonable
>>> size - my wayland-session.log is currently ~ 165kB.
>>>
>>> Dale does not reboot often, so the file will grow until it is
>>> deleted/rotated.
>> I logged out and back in when I finished my updates this morning.  It
>> was huge before I logged out and still huge when I logged back in.  It
>> seems it doesn't delete/rotate here for some reason.
> The reason must be you logged in a Wayland Plasma desktop, rather the Xserver 
> desktop?


While Wayland is installed here, I don't actively use it.  I'm sure it
is running since things are switching in that direction tho.  I just
still use the old X stuff as far as what I select when logging in. 
Unless it changed without me knowing it. 


>
>>> You can automate the rotation of this file with logrotate.  Just add it in
>>> the logrotate.d/ directory and specify a maximum size you're happy with,
>>> e.g. "size 3M" and/or how long before it is rotated, e.g. "weekly".
>> Honestly, if it is logging a problem that much, I'd like to know what it
>> is so I can fix it.  That way the log is a reasonable size and whatever
>> it is complaining about is fixed and working correctly as well. 
>>
>> I did delete the file.  So far, it hasn't came back.  I'll try to
>> remember to look when I logout and back in next weekend after updates. 
>> If it does, I'll look into logrotate.  I haven't set up one of those in
>> ages.  :/ 
>>
>> Still wonder what it is complaining so much about.  o_O
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-) 
> The sddm log can be quite chatty about non-critical warnings triggered by your 
> desktop.  I just logged in an hour ago and my '.local/share/sddm/wayland-
> session.log' is already 897 lines long.  It's getting filled up with warnings 
> about plasmoids, missing files, etc. - e.g.:
>
> file:///usr/share/plasma/plasmoids/org.kde.plasma.kickoff/contents/ui/
> main.qml:310:13: QML Image: Cannot open: file:
> ///usr/share/plasma/plasmoids/org.kde.plasma.kickoff/contents/ui/start-here-
> kde-symbolic
> IFFChunk::innerFromDevice: unkwnown chunk "\x89PNG"
> IFFChunk::innerFromDevice: unkwnown chunk "\x89PNG"
> IFFChunk::innerFromDevice: unkwnown chunk "\x89PNG"
> ...
>
> Since you restart your desktop rarely, setting up logrotate to deal with this 
> log file would make sense.


I'll do that if the file shows up again and starts getting some size.  I
have no idea how logrotate is setup nowadays.  I haven't messed with it
in ages.  I do logout and back in once a week tho.  Whenever the updates
are done. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[Javier Martinez]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1893 bytes --]

El 14/9/25 a las 10:56, Dale escribió:
> Howdy,
> 
> I was doing my backups which includes config files.  I noticed one file
> was shall we say, large.  The better term might be HUGE.  This is the
> culprit.
> 
> 
> 
> root@Gentoo-1 / # ls /home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log
> -rw-r--r-- 1 dale users 13,905,915,860 Sep 14 03:33
> /home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log
> root@Gentoo-1 / #
> 
> 
> 
> I added the commas to the file size.  Obviously one shouldn't try to
> open a file that size with Kwrite or anything.  It's just to large.
> Heck, it took several minutes for the tail command to get this.
> 
> 
> root@Gentoo-1 / # tail -n 100 /home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log
> Service  ":1.6973" unregistered
> QSocketNotifier: Invalid socket 5 and type 'Read', disabling...
> ark.kerfuffle: Could not detect mimetype from content. Using
> extension-based mimetype: "text/x-log"
> root@Gentoo-1 / #
> 
> 
> As you can see, I asked for the last 100 lines but it only gave me
> that.  Obviously something is off with that file and maybe sddm as well.
> 
> First, I'd like to make that file MUCH smaller, empty would be OK.
> Second, I'd like to stop it from getting that big again.  I tried using
> echo to make it only one line.  It went something like this.
> 
> 
> echo "" > /home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log
> 
> 
> I thought it worked at first but by the time my backup script got to it,
> it was back again, hugely back.  Now it doesn't do anything even though
> I'm root.  I can't seem to empty this file or really see what is in it
> either.
> 
> Can someone share a better way to fix this file?  Oh, I googled.  The
> info I found was people using systemd.  They used commands I don't have
> since I use openrc.
> 
> Thanks.
>   
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)
> 
chattr +i ????

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3145 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[Alexis]

Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> writes:

> While Wayland is installed here, I don't actively use it.  I'm 
> sure it
> is running since things are switching in that direction tho.

Just to note, since this seems to be based on a common 
misunderstanding:

Wayland is a protocol - and more loosely, a collection of 
protocols[a] - not a server. There is no 'Wayland server' 
analogous to an X server. One doesn't start 'Wayland' and then 
start a WM/DE; one starts a compositor, which can be thought of as 
a combination of a server and a WM/DE. So it's possible to have 
Wayland libraries on one's system that aren't used / 'running' 
until one actively starts up a Wayland compositor. Their mere 
presence doesn't indicate that there must be a Wayland session 
running, or that a Wayland session is required to be running.


Alexis.

[a] Cf. the Wayland Explorer, https://wayland.app/protocols/

Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[Dr Felix Raekson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1052 bytes --]

Thank you for this explanation 

On 16 September 2025 05:33:28 IST, Alexis <flexibeast@gmail.com> wrote:
>Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> While Wayland is installed here, I don't actively use it.  I'm sure it
>> is running since things are switching in that direction tho.
>
>Just to note, since this seems to be based on a common misunderstanding:
>
>Wayland is a protocol - and more loosely, a collection of protocols[a] - not a server. There is no 'Wayland server' analogous to an X server. One doesn't start 'Wayland' and then start a WM/DE; one starts a compositor, which can be thought of as a combination of a server and a WM/DE. So it's possible to have Wayland libraries on one's system that aren't used / 'running' until one actively starts up a Wayland compositor. Their mere presence doesn't indicate that there must be a Wayland session running, or that a Wayland session is required to be running.
>
>
>Alexis.
>
>[a] Cf. the Wayland Explorer, https://wayland.app/protocols/
>

Kind Regards 
Dr Felix Raekson 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1628 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[Dale]

Alexis wrote:
> Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> While Wayland is installed here, I don't actively use it.  I'm sure it
>> is running since things are switching in that direction tho.
>
> Just to note, since this seems to be based on a common misunderstanding:
>
> Wayland is a protocol - and more loosely, a collection of protocols[a]
> - not a server. There is no 'Wayland server' analogous to an X server.
> One doesn't start 'Wayland' and then start a WM/DE; one starts a
> compositor, which can be thought of as a combination of a server and a
> WM/DE. So it's possible to have Wayland libraries on one's system that
> aren't used / 'running' until one actively starts up a Wayland
> compositor. Their mere presence doesn't indicate that there must be a
> Wayland session running, or that a Wayland session is required to be
> running.
>
>
> Alexis.
>
> [a] Cf. the Wayland Explorer, https://wayland.app/protocols/
>
>


That is true.  My point was, on the login screen, I don't select
Wayland.  I use the old X thing, whatever it is called nowadays.  That
said, I wouldn't be surprised if something Wayland was in use by some
software.  I just checked and it shows no processes with wayland in it
is running but it could be that it just isn't right now.  I know some
packages on here have the wayland USE flag set.  I think some can't
really be disabled due to it being needed by other packages. 

I do recall a good while back that somehow Wayland was selected on the
login screen.  I noticed it acting weird and logged back out.  I then
noticed it had Wayland selected somehow.  I switched back and it worked
like I expected.  It was a while ago. 

By the way, the file still hasn't popped back up, yet.  O_o 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2406 bytes --]

On Tuesday, 16 September 2025 06:05:41 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
> Alexis wrote:
> > Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> writes:
> >> While Wayland is installed here, I don't actively use it.  I'm sure it
> >> is running since things are switching in that direction tho.
> > 
> > Just to note, since this seems to be based on a common misunderstanding:
> > 
> > Wayland is a protocol - and more loosely, a collection of protocols[a]
> > - not a server. There is no 'Wayland server' analogous to an X server.
> > One doesn't start 'Wayland' and then start a WM/DE; one starts a
> > compositor, which can be thought of as a combination of a server and a
> > WM/DE. So it's possible to have Wayland libraries on one's system that
> > aren't used / 'running' until one actively starts up a Wayland
> > compositor. Their mere presence doesn't indicate that there must be a
> > Wayland session running, or that a Wayland session is required to be
> > running.
> > 
> > 
> > Alexis.
> > 
> > [a] Cf. the Wayland Explorer, https://wayland.app/protocols/
> 
> That is true.  My point was, on the login screen, I don't select
> Wayland.  I use the old X thing, whatever it is called nowadays.  That
> said, I wouldn't be surprised if something Wayland was in use by some
> software.  I just checked and it shows no processes with wayland in it
> is running but it could be that it just isn't right now.  I know some
> packages on here have the wayland USE flag set.  I think some can't
> really be disabled due to it being needed by other packages. 
> 
> I do recall a good while back that somehow Wayland was selected on the
> login screen.  I noticed it acting weird and logged back out.  I then
> noticed it had Wayland selected somehow.  I switched back and it worked
> like I expected.  It was a while ago. 
> 
> By the way, the file still hasn't popped back up, yet.  O_o 
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-) 

Alt+Ctrl+F2 or F7 will show you what you started sddm with.  Also in a 
terminal you can check this output:

~ $ echo $XDG_SESSION_TYPE
wayland

I'm running a wayland compositor here.  If you see "x11", this means you are 
running an xserver.

In addition, top and ps axf will show what process is providing your desktop 
GUI.

If you are on wayland the xorg-session.log file will be empty, or absent, 
while the wayland-session.log file will be getting fat.  Perhaps just as xorg-
session.log file used to.  :-)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3070 bytes --]

Michael wrote:
> On Tuesday, 16 September 2025 06:05:41 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
>> Alexis wrote:
>>> Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> While Wayland is installed here, I don't actively use it.  I'm sure it
>>>> is running since things are switching in that direction tho.
>>> Just to note, since this seems to be based on a common misunderstanding:
>>>
>>> Wayland is a protocol - and more loosely, a collection of protocols[a]
>>> - not a server. There is no 'Wayland server' analogous to an X server.
>>> One doesn't start 'Wayland' and then start a WM/DE; one starts a
>>> compositor, which can be thought of as a combination of a server and a
>>> WM/DE. So it's possible to have Wayland libraries on one's system that
>>> aren't used / 'running' until one actively starts up a Wayland
>>> compositor. Their mere presence doesn't indicate that there must be a
>>> Wayland session running, or that a Wayland session is required to be
>>> running.
>>>
>>>
>>> Alexis.
>>>
>>> [a] Cf. the Wayland Explorer, https://wayland.app/protocols/
>> That is true.  My point was, on the login screen, I don't select
>> Wayland.  I use the old X thing, whatever it is called nowadays.  That
>> said, I wouldn't be surprised if something Wayland was in use by some
>> software.  I just checked and it shows no processes with wayland in it
>> is running but it could be that it just isn't right now.  I know some
>> packages on here have the wayland USE flag set.  I think some can't
>> really be disabled due to it being needed by other packages. 
>>
>> I do recall a good while back that somehow Wayland was selected on the
>> login screen.  I noticed it acting weird and logged back out.  I then
>> noticed it had Wayland selected somehow.  I switched back and it worked
>> like I expected.  It was a while ago. 
>>
>> By the way, the file still hasn't popped back up, yet.  O_o 
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-) 
> Alt+Ctrl+F2 or F7 will show you what you started sddm with.  Also in a 
> terminal you can check this output:
>
> ~ $ echo $XDG_SESSION_TYPE
> wayland
>
> I'm running a wayland compositor here.  If you see "x11", this means you are 
> running an xserver.
>
> In addition, top and ps axf will show what process is providing your desktop 
> GUI.
>
> If you are on wayland the xorg-session.log file will be empty, or absent, 
> while the wayland-session.log file will be getting fat.  Perhaps just as xorg-
> session.log file used to.  :-)


I just did a ps aux | grep wayland.  It didn't return any matches.  I
also couldn't remember if it was X11, Xorg or something else.  I think
there was a change a few years ago, maybe. 

Either way, I don't select Wayland but some packages are installed that
have the USE flag on which means they may use Wayland.  How or which
ones, I dunno.  LOL 

So far, the file still hasn't popped back up.  I suspect it will when I
log out and back in this coming weekend after updates.  If so, I may
beat it with the rm hammer again.  ;-) 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

P. S.  Gave away almost 4 gallons of okra yesterday. 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4505 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[Nuno Silva]

On 2025-09-16, Michael wrote:

>
> Alt+Ctrl+F2 or F7 will show you what you started sddm with.  Also in a
> terminal you can check this output:
>
> ~ $ echo $XDG_SESSION_TYPE
> wayland
>
> I'm running a wayland compositor here.  If you see "x11", this means you are 
> running an xserver.


This (in a terminal emulator) can also come up empty under X11. Is this
something that's set only by graphical login managers (or even just a
subset of them)?

(See also news://news.blueworldhosting.com/107s2sl$25lfa$3@dont-email.me
, about the same thing in comp.os.linux.misc.)

> In addition, top and ps axf will show what process is providing your desktop 
> GUI.
>
> If you are on wayland the xorg-session.log file will be empty, or absent, 
> while the wayland-session.log file will be getting fat.  Perhaps just as xorg-
> session.log file used to.  :-)

-- 
Nuno Silva

[gentoo-user] Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[Nuno Silva]

On 2025-09-14, Michael wrote:

> On Sunday, 14 September 2025 10:39:53 British Summer Time Peter Humphrey 
> wrote:
>> On Sunday, 14 September 2025 09:56:09 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
>> > Howdy,
>> > 
>> > I was doing my backups which includes config files.  I noticed one file
>> > was shall we say, large.  The better term might be HUGE.  This is the
>> > culprit.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > root@Gentoo-1 / # ls /home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log
>> > -rw-r--r-- 1 dale users 13,905,915,860 Sep 14 03:33
>> > /home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log
>> > root@Gentoo-1 / #

I'll guess that's one of these situations where all stdout and stderr of
a graphical session are redirected to a file. This would include also
stdout and stderr of all processes started through graphical menus (as
opposed to started from terminal emulators or started outside the X11
session (by setting $DISPLAY, and possibly using TCP if enabled and
allowed, etc.)).

And I think at least GTK+ can be quite verbose issuing warnings. Some
applications may also opt to output informational lines to their output.
 
>> Mine is 32K.
>
> The size of this log file increases over time.  If you reboot/restart your 
> desktop daily, the file will be overwritten and remain at a reasonable size - 
> my wayland-session.log is currently ~ 165kB.
>
> Dale does not reboot often, so the file will grow until it is
> deleted/rotated.

Why do you expect this to be rotated or deleted? While some tools will
do this (I think one example being the X server with its own log files,
for the server itself), in the absence of specific features to do so,
log files are not rotated.

>> > I added the commas to the file size.  Obviously one shouldn't try to
>> > open a file that size with Kwrite or anything.  It's just to large.
>> > Heck, it took several minutes for the tail command to get this.

(You may be aware of this, and that may have been just to illustrate the
enormous size, but in case you aren't, at least GNU ls has the
"-h"/"--human-readable" flag.)


>> > 
>> > root@Gentoo-1 / # tail -n 100
>> > /home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log
>> > Service  ":1.6973" unregistered
>> > QSocketNotifier: Invalid socket 5 and type 'Read', disabling...
>> > ark.kerfuffle: Could not detect mimetype from content. Using
>> > extension-based mimetype: "text/x-log"
>> > root@Gentoo-1 / #
>> > 
>> > As you can see, I asked for the last 100 lines but it only gave me
>> > that.  Obviously something is off with that file and maybe sddm as
>> > well.

Is it possible that this was caused by file modification?

>> > First, I'd like to make that file MUCH smaller, empty would be OK.
>> > Second, I'd like to stop it from getting that big again.  I tried using
>> > echo to make it only one line.  It went something like this.
>> > 
>> > echo "" > /home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log
>> > 
>> > I thought it worked at first but by the time my backup script got to it,
>> > it was back again, hugely back.  Now it doesn't do anything even though
>> > I'm root.  I can't seem to empty this file or really see what is in it
>> > either.

You could also use truncate, but if something is writing to it with an
offset, my guess is you'll end either with the same on-disk size or a
sparse file if you're lucky.

>> > 
>> > Can someone share a better way to fix this file?  Oh, I googled.  The
>> > info I found was people using systemd.  They used commands I don't have
>> > since I use openrc.
>> 
>> Why not just delete it? Then xorg will start afresh.

Deleting it is indeed a way to go, you'll lose all the new content from
still running writers, but if it reappears, it'll be recreated from
scratch. Unless some tool is being overzealous and doing unexpected
things like writing to it based on reopening the filename and not by
keeping a handle.  And that's probably not likely, as most processes
writing to it are probably writing there because it's opened at file
descriptors 1 and 2.

> You can automate the rotation of this file with logrotate.  Just add it in the 
> logrotate.d/ directory and specify a maximum size you're happy with, e.g. 
> "size 3M" and/or how long before it is rotated, e.g. "weekly".

(logrotate has a default configuration for user dirs under /home?)

-- 
Nuno Silva

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 757 bytes --]

On Tuesday, 16 September 2025 11:24:48 British Summer Time Nuno Silva wrote:
> On 2025-09-16, Michael wrote:
> > Alt+Ctrl+F2 or F7 will show you what you started sddm with.  Also in a
> > terminal you can check this output:
> > 
> > ~ $ echo $XDG_SESSION_TYPE
> > wayland
> > 
> > I'm running a wayland compositor here.  If you see "x11", this means you
> > are running an xserver.
> 
> This (in a terminal emulator) can also come up empty under X11. Is this
> something that's set only by graphical login managers (or even just a
> subset of them)?
> 
> (See also news://news.blueworldhosting.com/107s2sl$25lfa$3@dont-email.me
> , about the same thing in comp.os.linux.misc.)

I just tried it running on an xterm within an X session and it returned "x11".

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4854 bytes --]

On Tuesday, 16 September 2025 11:54:11 British Summer Time Nuno Silva wrote:
> On 2025-09-14, Michael wrote:
> > On Sunday, 14 September 2025 10:39:53 British Summer Time Peter Humphrey
> > 
> > wrote:
> >> On Sunday, 14 September 2025 09:56:09 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
> >> > Howdy,
> >> > 
> >> > I was doing my backups which includes config files.  I noticed one file
> >> > was shall we say, large.  The better term might be HUGE.  This is the
> >> > culprit.
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > root@Gentoo-1 / # ls /home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log
> >> > -rw-r--r-- 1 dale users 13,905,915,860 Sep 14 03:33
> >> > /home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log
> >> > root@Gentoo-1 / #
> 
> I'll guess that's one of these situations where all stdout and stderr of
> a graphical session are redirected to a file. This would include also
> stdout and stderr of all processes started through graphical menus (as
> opposed to started from terminal emulators or started outside the X11
> session (by setting $DISPLAY, and possibly using TCP if enabled and
> allowed, etc.)).
> 
> And I think at least GTK+ can be quite verbose issuing warnings. Some
> applications may also opt to output informational lines to their output.
> 
> >> Mine is 32K.
> > 
> > The size of this log file increases over time.  If you reboot/restart your
> > desktop daily, the file will be overwritten and remain at a reasonable
> > size - my wayland-session.log is currently ~ 165kB.
> > 
> > Dale does not reboot often, so the file will grow until it is
> > deleted/rotated.
> 
> Why do you expect this to be rotated or deleted? While some tools will
> do this (I think one example being the X server with its own log files,
> for the server itself), in the absence of specific features to do so,
> log files are not rotated.

I had deleted it in the past while I was testing sddm with X and Wayland and 
in both cases the log file was recreated when I logged in again.


> >> > I added the commas to the file size.  Obviously one shouldn't try to
> >> > open a file that size with Kwrite or anything.  It's just to large.
> >> > Heck, it took several minutes for the tail command to get this.
> 
> (You may be aware of this, and that may have been just to illustrate the
> enormous size, but in case you aren't, at least GNU ls has the
> "-h"/"--human-readable" flag.)
> 
> >> > root@Gentoo-1 / # tail -n 100
> >> > /home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log
> >> > Service  ":1.6973" unregistered
> >> > QSocketNotifier: Invalid socket 5 and type 'Read', disabling...
> >> > ark.kerfuffle: Could not detect mimetype from content. Using
> >> > extension-based mimetype: "text/x-log"
> >> > root@Gentoo-1 / #
> >> > 
> >> > As you can see, I asked for the last 100 lines but it only gave me
> >> > that.  Obviously something is off with that file and maybe sddm as
> >> > well.
> 
> Is it possible that this was caused by file modification?
> 
> >> > First, I'd like to make that file MUCH smaller, empty would be OK.
> >> > Second, I'd like to stop it from getting that big again.  I tried using
> >> > echo to make it only one line.  It went something like this.
> >> > 
> >> > echo "" > /home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log
> >> > 
> >> > I thought it worked at first but by the time my backup script got to
> >> > it,
> >> > it was back again, hugely back.  Now it doesn't do anything even though
> >> > I'm root.  I can't seem to empty this file or really see what is in it
> >> > either.
> 
> You could also use truncate, but if something is writing to it with an
> offset, my guess is you'll end either with the same on-disk size or a
> sparse file if you're lucky.
> 
> >> > Can someone share a better way to fix this file?  Oh, I googled.  The
> >> > info I found was people using systemd.  They used commands I don't have
> >> > since I use openrc.
> >> 
> >> Why not just delete it? Then xorg will start afresh.
> 
> Deleting it is indeed a way to go, you'll lose all the new content from
> still running writers, but if it reappears, it'll be recreated from
> scratch. Unless some tool is being overzealous and doing unexpected
> things like writing to it based on reopening the filename and not by
> keeping a handle.  And that's probably not likely, as most processes
> writing to it are probably writing there because it's opened at file
> descriptors 1 and 2.
> 
> > You can automate the rotation of this file with logrotate.  Just add it in
> > the logrotate.d/ directory and specify a maximum size you're happy with,
> > e.g. "size 3M" and/or how long before it is rotated, e.g. "weekly".
> 
> (logrotate has a default configuration for user dirs under /home?)

No, you'll have to add a configuration for the specific file with your own 
requirements (size, frequency and perhaps post-rotation script) for the log 
file rotation.


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[Nuno Silva]

On 2025-09-16, Michael wrote:

> On Tuesday, 16 September 2025 11:24:48 British Summer Time Nuno Silva wrote:
>> On 2025-09-16, Michael wrote:
>> > Alt+Ctrl+F2 or F7 will show you what you started sddm with.  Also in a
>> > terminal you can check this output:
>> > 
>> > ~ $ echo $XDG_SESSION_TYPE
>> > wayland
>> > 
>> > I'm running a wayland compositor here.  If you see "x11", this means you
>> > are running an xserver.
>> 
>> This (in a terminal emulator) can also come up empty under X11. Is this
>> something that's set only by graphical login managers (or even just a
>> subset of them)?
>> 
>> (See also news://news.blueworldhosting.com/107s2sl$25lfa$3@dont-email.me
>> , about the same thing in comp.os.linux.misc.)
>
> I just tried it running on an xterm within an X session and it returned "x11".

Yes, but I can guarantee it is not necessarily always set under X11. So
it most likely means something else?

-- 
Nuno Silva

Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[Wol]

On 16/09/2025 06:05, Dale wrote:
> I do recall a good while back that somehow Wayland was selected on the
> login screen.  I noticed it acting weird and logged back out.  I then
> noticed it had Wayland selected somehow.  I switched back and it worked
> like I expected.  It was a while ago.

Wayland has problems remembering where windows used to be. It's 
something to do with the basic design of things - certainly a lot of 
things that were simple with X (because it ran as root) are a lot harder 
with Wayland because of its much more strict security stance.

Cheers,
Wol

Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[Wol]

On 16/09/2025 05:33, Alexis wrote:
> 
> Wayland is a protocol - and more loosely, a collection of protocols[a] - 
> not a server. There is no 'Wayland server' analogous to an X server. One 
> doesn't start 'Wayland' and then start a WM/DE; one starts a compositor, 
> which can be thought of as a combination of a server and a WM/DE. So 
> it's possible to have Wayland libraries on one's system that aren't 
> used / 'running' until one actively starts up a Wayland compositor. 
> Their mere presence doesn't indicate that there must be a Wayland 
> session running, or that a Wayland session is required to be running.

I had this explained to me on LWN, so I hope I get it right ...

The X server is basically the protocol manager AND the compositor 
combined. But because the protocol was designed with last-century 
hardware in mind, the compositor element must pretend to be an old video 
card and then convert everything over to the new hardware protocols. The 
result is loads of cruft.

Wayland splits the protocol server and compositor. The result is a lot 
simpler, as the compositor basically speaks DRM to the kernel (Display 
wotsit Manager).

So we've now basically got four compositors to replace the X server. 
People think it would make sense to have only one but really it's just a 
historical accident. We have Weston, the demo compositor, Plasma, the 
KDE compositor, whatever the Gnome compositor is, and Xorg!!! That's why 
Xorg is still alive, but the X server is walking dead - all the stuff 
that talks direct to the hardware is pretty much abandonware - Xorg now 
sits on top of Wayland and that's the only bit that's actively maintained.

So the reason we have four Wayland compositors is that Xorg, KDE and 
Gnome all pre-date Weston, and the cost of migrating over isn't worth 
it. Pretty much all new stuff targets Weston.

Don't forget that X is a protocol. So Wayland is an exact replacement 
for X, but the new Wayland compositor stuff is simply a refactored 
replacement for the X server stuff. With all the cruft (hopefully) 
ditched. The refactoring is a complete change of structure because the 
X-server is basically a dinosaur not fit for the modern world.

(And historically there were multiple X servers - the two I can think of 
instantly are X-Free86 and Xorg - there are certainly more ...)

Cheers,
Wol

Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[Dale]

Wol wrote:
> On 16/09/2025 06:05, Dale wrote:
>> I do recall a good while back that somehow Wayland was selected on the
>> login screen.  I noticed it acting weird and logged back out.  I then
>> noticed it had Wayland selected somehow.  I switched back and it worked
>> like I expected.  It was a while ago.
>
> Wayland has problems remembering where windows used to be. It's
> something to do with the basic design of things - certainly a lot of
> things that were simple with X (because it ran as root) are a lot
> harder with Wayland because of its much more strict security stance.
>
> Cheers,
> Wol
>
>


I can't recall what it did that was weird or not working right, I just
recall it wasn't working for me.  I didn't realize it logged me in to
use Wayland.  I just happened to look up and see it when I logged out. 
Whatever it was, it may be fixed by now.  Then again, there could be a
whole new set of issues.  ;-)  It could take a while and a lot of work
for them to develop Wayland to work for everyone.  One big problem they
likely have, making it work with the current X11 system as well.  If it
was designed to work only on software written to work with it, it could
be easier.  Having to deal with both and make Wayland compatible with
both, that could be making things harder.  I'm not a dev so just my
thinking. 

For the record.  I'm not against Wayland.  It's just not ready for my
use yet.  I've read where others have issues and some others where it
works fine.  I'm sure at some point the bugs and kinks will be worked
out just like it was for X11 and any number of other GUI type stuff. 
When the time comes that it works well for me, I'll switch to it.  If it
is better that is. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[Wol]

On 16/09/2025 12:36, Michael wrote:
> I had deleted it in the past while I was testing sddm with X and Wayland and
> in both cases the log file was recreated when I logged in again.

When you log in, the Xserver by default creates a new log file, 
something like "~/.Xserver.0.log", and renumbers all the older logs to 
.1, .2 etc. I think it went up to .9, giving you a maximum of ten log files.

So logging out and back in *should* rotate the log for you.

I've got a feeling it might be set not to create a new log file if it 
can't find an old one, so deleting them all *might* stop new ones being 
created.

There's so many weird and wonderful ways these things can be done :-) 
and XOrg is directly descended from XFree86, which is directly descended 
from something else, so the code base probably goes back to the 80s - 
and quite possibly beyond ... I wonder what standard practice was back then!

Cheers,
Wol

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1170 bytes --]

On Tuesday, 16 September 2025 23:25:35 British Summer Time Wol wrote:
> On 16/09/2025 12:36, Michael wrote:
> > I had deleted it in the past while I was testing sddm with X and Wayland
> > and in both cases the log file was recreated when I logged in again.
> 
> When you log in, the Xserver by default creates a new log file,
> something like "~/.Xserver.0.log", and renumbers all the older logs to
> .1, .2 etc. I think it went up to .9, giving you a maximum of ten log files.
> 
> So logging out and back in *should* rotate the log for you.
> 
> I've got a feeling it might be set not to create a new log file if it
> can't find an old one, so deleting them all *might* stop new ones being
> created.
> 
> There's so many weird and wonderful ways these things can be done :-)
> and XOrg is directly descended from XFree86, which is directly descended
> from something else, so the code base probably goes back to the 80s -
> and quite possibly beyond ... I wonder what standard practice was back then!
> 
> Cheers,
> Wol

The problem Dale came up to and this thread did not involve /var/log/
Xorg.0.log, but the sddm created file ~/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[Javier Martinez]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1310 bytes --]

El 17/9/25 a las 1:11, Michael escribió:
> On Tuesday, 16 September 2025 23:25:35 British Summer Time Wol wrote:
>> On 16/09/2025 12:36, Michael wrote:
>>> I had deleted it in the past while I was testing sddm with X and Wayland
>>> and in both cases the log file was recreated when I logged in again.
>>
>> When you log in, the Xserver by default creates a new log file,
>> something like "~/.Xserver.0.log", and renumbers all the older logs to
>> .1, .2 etc. I think it went up to .9, giving you a maximum of ten log files.
>>
>> So logging out and back in *should* rotate the log for you.
>>
>> I've got a feeling it might be set not to create a new log file if it
>> can't find an old one, so deleting them all *might* stop new ones being
>> created.
>>
>> There's so many weird and wonderful ways these things can be done :-)
>> and XOrg is directly descended from XFree86, which is directly descended
>> from something else, so the code base probably goes back to the 80s -
>> and quite possibly beyond ... I wonder what standard practice was back then!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Wol
> 
> The problem Dale came up to and this thread did not involve /var/log/
> Xorg.0.log, but the sddm created file ~/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log.
chattr +i  ~/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3145 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[Dale]

Javier Martinez wrote:
> El 17/9/25 a las 1:11, Michael escribió:
>> On Tuesday, 16 September 2025 23:25:35 British Summer Time Wol wrote:
>>> On 16/09/2025 12:36, Michael wrote:
>>>> I had deleted it in the past while I was testing sddm with X and
>>>> Wayland
>>>> and in both cases the log file was recreated when I logged in again.
>>>
>>> When you log in, the Xserver by default creates a new log file,
>>> something like "~/.Xserver.0.log", and renumbers all the older logs to
>>> .1, .2 etc. I think it went up to .9, giving you a maximum of ten
>>> log files.
>>>
>>> So logging out and back in *should* rotate the log for you.
>>>
>>> I've got a feeling it might be set not to create a new log file if it
>>> can't find an old one, so deleting them all *might* stop new ones being
>>> created.
>>>
>>> There's so many weird and wonderful ways these things can be done :-)
>>> and XOrg is directly descended from XFree86, which is directly
>>> descended
>>> from something else, so the code base probably goes back to the 80s -
>>> and quite possibly beyond ... I wonder what standard practice was
>>> back then!
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Wol
>>
>> The problem Dale came up to and this thread did not involve /var/log/
>> Xorg.0.log, but the sddm created file
>> ~/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log.
> chattr +i  ~/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log


Then I have another problem.  Something is not working right and is
being logged.  If it can't update the file with the error, I don't know
what the problem is.  It may not be a big deal now but later on, it
could cause a serious problem.  It may even stop sddm from working. 

One of the reasons for my post, to get the file where I can open it.  It
was so big, I couldn't get anything to let me know what is in the file. 
What I would really have liked to do, just erase or clear the file and
let it start fresh, but much smaller.  When I logout and back in next
weekend, I hope it recreates the file and puts a little info in it. 
Then I can see what the problem is and hopefully fix it.  If I get a
chance, I may even logout and back in before this weekend. 

I might add, so far just deleting the file has worked.  o_O  Still, no
idea what it is having a problem with. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Wayland [was: Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Alexis]

Wol <antlists@youngman.org.uk> writes:

> So we've now basically got four compositors to replace the X
> server.

It's actually many more than four: 
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/List_of_software_for_Wayland#Compositors

This list isn't necessarily all the compositors available; 
e.g. Deepin's "Treeland" compositor isn't listed, because it 
doesn't yet appear to be packaged for Gentoo (at least in either 
the main repo or overlays).

As far as i'm aware, there are now four main compositor groups:

* KDE/Plasma
* GNOME/Mutter
* Aquamarine/Hyprland 
* wlroots-based compositors, e.g. Sway and Wayfire

i'm not including Weston in this list because it's not meant to be 
used as an end-user compositor, just as a minimalist 
implementation of a Wayland compositor, as an example for 
compositor devs. Aquamarine is, i understand it, a 
reimplementation of functionality provided by wlroots.

However, there are various other compositors, e.g. Miracle and 
Niri.

Compositors can mix'n'match which Wayland extension protocols they 
use - cf. the Wayland Explorer i linked to in my previous post - 
which allows compositors to be created which only implement the 
extensions they need. For example, a compositor for a kiosk might 
only implement certain protocols, whereas a compositor intended 
for desktop use might implement many more.

For more background, i recommend this presentation by former Xorg 
dev Daniel Stone:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIctzAQOe44

Slides:

  https://people.freedesktop.org/~daniels/lca2013-wayland-x11.pdf


Alexis.

Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[Alexis]

Wol <antlists@youngman.org.uk> writes:

> Wayland has problems remembering where windows used to be.

Do you mean, there are limitations of the protocol that cause 
this? If so, i'd certainly be interested in the details.

But more generally, further to my last email, just because one 
compositor has issues with something, doesn't mean _all_ Wayland 
compositors have that issue. For example, a number of people who 
have issues with Mutter assume that 'Wayland' is the issue, when 
in fact the issue is that the Mutter devs consciously choose to 
not implement certain things. Likewise, it's incorrect to assume 
that Weston implements all possible functionality; as i said in my 
last email, it's not intended to be such a showcase, only a 
minimal example implementation. This is why i put together the 
"Functionality by compositor" section on the "List of software for 
Wayland" page on the wiki, which shows which compositors have 
implemented which interfaces. (Someone added the Niri column 
recently; i'm not sure how current the rest of the information now 
is, and unfortunately chronic health issues mean i'm not in a 
position to go through and update it.)

i've also noticed people assuming that if there isn't currently an 
implementation of some functionality that X implements, that it's 
not possible at all under Wayland. This is incorrect. For example, 
it used to be the case that there was no 
Wayland-session-over-the-network functionality. But in more recent 
times, people using compositors based on wlroots (e.g. Sway) might 
be able to use waypipe(1); i'm not sure what's the case for other 
compositors. And waypipe(1) might not actually be sufficient for 
some people's use cases right now, but that might be more due to a 
lack of volunteers to implement the relevant functionality, not 
because it's not possible under Wayland.


Alexis.

Wayland [was Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Alexis]

Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> writes:

> One big problem they
> likely have, making it work with the current X11 system as 
> well.  If it
> was designed to work only on software written to work with it, 
> it could
> be easier.  Having to deal with both and make Wayland compatible 
> with
> both, that could be making things harder.  I'm not a dev so just 
> my
> thinking. 

Xwayland runs an X server on top of a Wayland compositor, and - as 
i know from direct experience - that's often sufficient for many 
programs that aren't explicitly Wayland-aware. (For example, The 
GIMP 2.x series.) That said, i know there are indeed programs 
where this is insufficient; i can't remember any off the top of my 
head, but perhaps KiCAD?

> For the record.  I'm not against Wayland.  It's just not ready 
> for my
> use yet.

Disagree.

My experience has been that statements like this aren't helpful, 
because people assume "Not ready for my specific use-case(s)" 
means "Not ready for anyone's use cases". That's a strong claim, 
and demonstrably incorrect. And it goes both ways: there are 
people for whom Wayland is a significant improvement over X, and 
so say to X users, "No, you're wrong, it _is_ ready." But again, 
that's incorrect; different people have different use-cases.

i started doing my own investigations for Wayland because i 
realised that it's coming down the pipe, and i wanted to add and 
update the wiki's information about Wayland, to make sure that 
it's factually correct. There haven't tended to be enough 
volunteers willing to work on maintaining X, until the recent 
appearance of XLibre; most of the Xorg devs don't want to have to 
wrangle the X code base anymore, and prefer to work on 
Wayland. (This includes Xorg dev Matthieu Herbb, the primary Xorg 
dev for OpenBSD + Xenocara; the last slide of his 2023 
presentation at 
https://2023.eurobsdcon.org/slides/eurobsdcon2023-matthieu_herrb-wayland-openbsd.pdf 
says "X11 is fading away / Wayland is the way to go for graphical 
desktops").

i've now been using Wayland basically exclusively for a couple of 
years, only rarely facing any significant issues. It's basically 
ready for _my_ use case. And there are people for whom Wayland 
solves screen tearing issues they experience under X (e.g. while 
gaming). That's not an issue _i've_ faced, but it's a significant 
issue for others.

Still, there are certainly various use-cases that it's not ready 
for. Here's a KDE community wiki page:

  https://community.kde.org/Plasma/Wayland_Known_Significant_Issues

Here's a in-depth post by a blind user about the state of 
Wayland's accessibility functionality - not adequate, but at least 
being actively worked on:

  https://fireborn.mataroa.blog/blog/i-want-to-love-linux-it-doesnt-love-me-back-post-4-wayland-is-growing-up-and-now-we-dont-have-a-choice/

(And for their pains of trying to give a factual assessment of the 
state of Wayland's accessibility functionality for _their_ needs, 
got called a 'Wayland shill'. Go figure.)

Wayland-on-Nvidia also seems to be an issue for a number of 
people, with some saying "How is Nvidia hardware not supported in 
2025??" But the fundamental issue here isn't Wayland people not 
caring about Nvidia hardware; the long-standing issue with Nvidia 
on Linux is that Nvidia continues to not play nicely with FOSS 
devs, guarding how their proprietary drivers work, making it 
significantly more difficult for FOSS devs to add working 
support. And this has been an issue on X as well, at least in the 
past; not sure where things are currently at re. the Nouveau 
driver. i deliberately don't use Nvidia hardware for this reason, 
but i know that there are people in situations where Nvidia 
hardware is the only practical option for their use-case(s).

Many, if not most, of us use Gentoo because it's more easily 
adapted to a variety of use-cases that other distros don't cater 
to. Gentoo tries to provide choice as long as there's the 
volunteer capacity to do so. For some of us, Wayland is more than 
ready; for some of us, it's really not.


Alexis.

Re: Wayland [was Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Wol]

On 17/09/2025 07:41, Alexis wrote:
> i started doing my own investigations for Wayland because i realised 
> that it's coming down the pipe, and i wanted to add and update the 
> wiki's information about Wayland, to make sure that it's factually 
> correct. There haven't tended to be enough volunteers willing to work on 
> maintaining X, until the recent appearance of XLibre; most of the Xorg 
> devs don't want to have to wrangle the X code base anymore, and prefer 
> to work on Wayland.

Xlibre - given my other post about the location of the compositor in the 
stack, is this the "X-Server as a Wayland compositor"?

The main thing that *normal* Wayland will never be able to do is run an 
X Server. So I know somebody's built this X thingy who's sole purpose is 
to be an X Server. So you're running this "X on Wayland" thingy that 
can't speak Wayland :-)

Cheers,
Wol

Re: Wayland [was Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Dale]

Alexis wrote:
> Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> One big problem they
>> likely have, making it work with the current X11 system as well.  If it
>> was designed to work only on software written to work with it, it could
>> be easier.  Having to deal with both and make Wayland compatible with
>> both, that could be making things harder.  I'm not a dev so just my
>> thinking. 
>
> Xwayland runs an X server on top of a Wayland compositor, and - as i
> know from direct experience - that's often sufficient for many
> programs that aren't explicitly Wayland-aware. (For example, The GIMP
> 2.x series.) That said, i know there are indeed programs where this is
> insufficient; i can't remember any off the top of my head, but perhaps
> KiCAD?
>
>> For the record.  I'm not against Wayland.  It's just not ready for my
>> use yet.
>
> Disagree.
>
> My experience has been that statements like this aren't helpful,
> because people assume "Not ready for my specific use-case(s)" means
> "Not ready for anyone's use cases". That's a strong claim, and
> demonstrably incorrect. And it goes both ways: there are people for
> whom Wayland is a significant improvement over X, and so say to X
> users, "No, you're wrong, it _is_ ready." But again, that's incorrect;
> different people have different use-cases.
>
> i started doing my own investigations for Wayland because i realised
> that it's coming down the pipe, and i wanted to add and update the
> wiki's information about Wayland, to make sure that it's factually
> correct. There haven't tended to be enough volunteers willing to work
> on maintaining X, until the recent appearance of XLibre; most of the
> Xorg devs don't want to have to wrangle the X code base anymore, and
> prefer to work on Wayland. (This includes Xorg dev Matthieu Herbb, the
> primary Xorg dev for OpenBSD + Xenocara; the last slide of his 2023
> presentation at
> https://2023.eurobsdcon.org/slides/eurobsdcon2023-matthieu_herrb-wayland-openbsd.pdf
> says "X11 is fading away / Wayland is the way to go for graphical
> desktops").
>
> i've now been using Wayland basically exclusively for a couple of
> years, only rarely facing any significant issues. It's basically ready
> for _my_ use case. And there are people for whom Wayland solves screen
> tearing issues they experience under X (e.g. while gaming). That's not
> an issue _i've_ faced, but it's a significant issue for others.
>
> Still, there are certainly various use-cases that it's not ready for.
> Here's a KDE community wiki page:
>
>  https://community.kde.org/Plasma/Wayland_Known_Significant_Issues
>
> Here's a in-depth post by a blind user about the state of Wayland's
> accessibility functionality - not adequate, but at least being
> actively worked on:
>
>  https://fireborn.mataroa.blog/blog/i-want-to-love-linux-it-doesnt-love-me-back-post-4-wayland-is-growing-up-and-now-we-dont-have-a-choice/
>
>
> (And for their pains of trying to give a factual assessment of the
> state of Wayland's accessibility functionality for _their_ needs, got
> called a 'Wayland shill'. Go figure.)
>
> Wayland-on-Nvidia also seems to be an issue for a number of people,
> with some saying "How is Nvidia hardware not supported in 2025??" But
> the fundamental issue here isn't Wayland people not caring about
> Nvidia hardware; the long-standing issue with Nvidia on Linux is that
> Nvidia continues to not play nicely with FOSS devs, guarding how their
> proprietary drivers work, making it significantly more difficult for
> FOSS devs to add working support. And this has been an issue on X as
> well, at least in the past; not sure where things are currently at re.
> the Nouveau driver. i deliberately don't use Nvidia hardware for this
> reason, but i know that there are people in situations where Nvidia
> hardware is the only practical option for their use-case(s).
>
> Many, if not most, of us use Gentoo because it's more easily adapted
> to a variety of use-cases that other distros don't cater to. Gentoo
> tries to provide choice as long as there's the volunteer capacity to
> do so. For some of us, Wayland is more than ready; for some of us,
> it's really not.
>
>
> Alexis.
>
>


Well, it's not ready for me it seems.  I have logged in with Wayland
selected.  I always run into issues that work fine when I'm not
selecting Wayland.  So, for me, it's not ready.  Even when I logged in
by accident with it, it still had issues that made me want to log back
out.  I wish I could recall what it did.  I don't think I posted about
the problem on this list since when I used the old X way it worked. 
Wayland may work fine for others but not for me. 

I do use Nvidia video cards so that could be part of the problem.  I
dunno.  To be honest, as long as what I'm using is maintained and
available, I'll likely stick with what I'm using now.  I may test drive
Wayland on occasion but I doubt I'll switch until I know it will work
for me or the current X thingy is gone. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: Wayland [was Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Alexis]

Wol <antlists@youngman.org.uk> writes:

> Xlibre - given my other post about the location of the 
> compositor in
> the stack, is this the "X-Server as a Wayland compositor"?

No, XLibre is a fork of Xorg, to try to keep it maintained and 
updated:

  https://github.com/X11Libre/

> The main thing that *normal* Wayland will never be able to do is 
> run
> an X Server.

Cf. the 'Wayback' project i forgot to mention in the post you're 
replying to, but which i linked to in the following post.

> a stub compositor which provides just enough Wayland 
> capabilities to host a rootful Xwayland server.


Alexis.

Re: Wayland [was: Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3283 bytes --]

On Wednesday, 17 September 2025 04:25:58 British Summer Time Alexis wrote:
> Wol <antlists@youngman.org.uk> writes:
> > So we've now basically got four compositors to replace the X
> > server.
> 
> It's actually many more than four:
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/List_of_software_for_Wayland#Compositors
> 
> This list isn't necessarily all the compositors available;
> e.g. Deepin's "Treeland" compositor isn't listed, because it
> doesn't yet appear to be packaged for Gentoo (at least in either
> the main repo or overlays).
> 
> As far as i'm aware, there are now four main compositor groups:
> 
> * KDE/Plasma
> * GNOME/Mutter
> * Aquamarine/Hyprland
> * wlroots-based compositors, e.g. Sway and Wayfire
> 
> i'm not including Weston in this list because it's not meant to be
> used as an end-user compositor, just as a minimalist
> implementation of a Wayland compositor, as an example for
> compositor devs. Aquamarine is, i understand it, a
> reimplementation of functionality provided by wlroots.
> 
> However, there are various other compositors, e.g. Miracle and
> Niri.
> 
> Compositors can mix'n'match which Wayland extension protocols they
> use - cf. the Wayland Explorer i linked to in my previous post -
> which allows compositors to be created which only implement the
> extensions they need. For example, a compositor for a kiosk might
> only implement certain protocols, whereas a compositor intended
> for desktop use might implement many more.
> 
> For more background, i recommend this presentation by former Xorg
> dev Daniel Stone:
> 
>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIctzAQOe44
> 
> Slides:
> 
>   https://people.freedesktop.org/~daniels/lca2013-wayland-x11.pdf
> 
> 
> Alexis.

Thanks for these links.  Made me reminisce of Nokia!  :-)

I can't recall how far back (2015-16?) xserver 'stopped working' reliably on a 
2x monitor setup and an A10 APU, running Plasma with the amdgpu driver.  
Setting up the primary monitor would switch on its own from left to the right 
monitor after a restart, the resolution would change on one of the monitors 
and other such annoying 'features' which increased user complaints and 
prompted me to look at wayland.  I think it was concurrent with kde5 coming 
out.  Not sure.

Within a year wayland and kwin had become more stable and totally usable as a 
daily desktop driver.  I can't recall if chromium or firefox were not fully 
compatible in terms of window decorations, or minimizing, resizing 
functionality.  Anyway, soon enough this was also resolved.  For all these 
years I have been using Wayland on a number of gentoo systems and hardware and 
have not come across any annoyances interfering with a desktop.  Applications 
render fast and reliably, window positioning is stable, screen placement and 
resolution remains as originally set, etc.  I don't use all the functionality 
of Wayland, e.g. screen sharing, or remote desktop, but using everyday desktop 
productivity applications and media players on a screen works faultlessly 
here.

I even tried to configure sddm to work with kwin and weston a year or two ago, 
but it didn't work at the time.

PS. I was surprised to see the Xlibre fork.  I don't mean this 
disrespectfully, but what is the point of continuing with X11 in 2025?  
Nostalgia?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: Wayland [was: Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 283 bytes --]

On Wednesday, 17 September 2025 10:35:39 British Summer Time you wrote:

> I even tried to configure sddm to work with kwin and weston a year or two
> ago, but it didn't work at the time.

Scratch this - I tried again and sddm runs with kwin as a wayland compositor 
on my system.



[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: Wayland [was: Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[David Bryant]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 844 bytes --]

On Wednesday, September 17, 2025 4:35:39 AM Central Daylight Time Michael wrote:
> [snip ...]
> PS. I was surprised to see the Xlibre fork.  I don't mean this
> disrespectfully, but what is the point of continuing with X11 in 2025?
> Nostalgia?


Wayland doesn't work well for me, so I'm stuck with X. If I try to use Wayland with the 
Nouveau driver, the cursor jumps all over the screen, rendering the mouse inoperable. If I 
use the NVIDIA (open source) driver, wayland works OK, but I lose functionality (Intel 
sound card won't work.) I have installed xlibre in a test version of Gentoo ... it seeems to 
work OK with the Nouveau driver. I've also installed the wayback package (in the guru 
repo). It also seems to work OK. But X11 still works for me, so why change? If it ain't 
broke, don't fix it.
-- 
David Bryant
Canyon Lake, Texas 

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1722 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: Wayland [was: Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[zyxhere💭]

On Wed, 2025-09-17 at 08:47 -0500, David Bryant wrote:
> But X11 still works for me, so why change? If it ain't broke, don't
> fix it
> 
On Wed, 2025-09-17 at 16:41 +1000, Alexis wrote:
> My experience has been that statements like this aren't helpful,
> because people assume "Not ready for my specific use-case(s)"
> means "Not ready for anyone's use cases". That's a strong claim,
> and demonstrably incorrect. And it goes both ways: there are
> people for whom Wayland is a significant improvement over X, and
> so say to X users, "No, you're wrong, it _is_ ready." But again,
> that's incorrect; different people have different use-cases.

[gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Nuno Silva]

On 2025-09-17, Alexis wrote:

> Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
>
>> For the record.  I'm not against Wayland.  It's just not ready for
>> my
>> use yet.
>
> Disagree.
>
> My experience has been that statements like this aren't helpful,
> because people assume "Not ready for my specific use-case(s)" means
> "Not ready for anyone's use cases". That's a strong claim, and
> demonstrably incorrect. And it goes both ways: there are people for
> whom Wayland is a significant improvement over X, and so say to X
> users, "No, you're wrong, it _is_ ready." But again, that's incorrect;
> different people have different use-cases.

Eh, no, it'd be much more valuable to know why someone says Wayland
isn't for them, at all or yet, than to try to avoid making such
objective remarks just because there's a risk that gets misinterpreted.

If someone overreacts because they read "it doesn't work for my use
case" as "nobody should use it", it's not really the person who wrote
the former who should adapt.


> i started doing my own investigations for Wayland because i realised
> that it's coming down the pipe, and i wanted to add and update the
> wiki's information about Wayland, to make sure that it's factually
> correct. There haven't tended to be enough volunteers willing to work
> on maintaining X, until the recent appearance of XLibre; most of the

That's something I haven't had time to check further, but which sounds
slightly off, because NetBSD has been doing their own modifications to
Xorg.

https://blog.netbsd.org/tnf/entry/x_org_on_netbsd_the


-- 
Nuno Silva

Re: Wayland [was: Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Javier Martinez]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1523 bytes --]

El 17/9/25 a las 18:53, zyxhere💭 escribió:
> On Wed, 2025-09-17 at 08:47 -0500, David Bryant wrote:
>> But X11 still works for me, so why change? If it ain't broke, don't
>> fix it
>>
> On Wed, 2025-09-17 at 16:41 +1000, Alexis wrote:
>> My experience has been that statements like this aren't helpful,
>> because people assume "Not ready for my specific use-case(s)"
>> means "Not ready for anyone's use cases". That's a strong claim,
>> and demonstrably incorrect. And it goes both ways: there are
>> people for whom Wayland is a significant improvement over X, and
>> so say to X users, "No, you're wrong, it _is_ ready." But again,
>> that's incorrect; different people have different use-cases.
> 

I'm Emacs user.... Oh mfg! it's not a flame emacs vs vi, just one 
wayland vs Xorg

Xorg has targetted a lot of troubles that had since it was XFree86 as 
could be the requirement to be the Xserver a setuid binary and a lot of 
troubles that could the system hang since it required time ago 
privileged RAM access as ioports. KMS was critical for this to happen. I 
think Wayland will suffer something like directfb, I don't see now 
advantages that makes wayland more useful than Xorg, useful for 
smartphones? maybe yes, but Xorg is more supported.

Wayland needs a Xorg layer compatibility to be useful for a lot of 
users, I want mean, the wayland Xserver, so finally they use the same 
client server architecture that a lot of people critized from Xorg

So finally, who cares...

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3145 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]

Re: Wayland [was: Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[zyxhere💭]

On Wed, 2025-09-17 at 19:57 +0200, Javier Martinez wrote:
> El 17/9/25 a las 18:53, zyxhere💭 escribió:
> > On Wed, 2025-09-17 at 08:47 -0500, David Bryant wrote:
> > > But X11 still works for me, so why change? If it ain't broke, don't
> > > fix it
> > > 
> > On Wed, 2025-09-17 at 16:41 +1000, Alexis wrote:
> > > My experience has been that statements like this aren't helpful,
> > > because people assume "Not ready for my specific use-case(s)"
> > > means "Not ready for anyone's use cases". That's a strong claim,
> > > and demonstrably incorrect. And it goes both ways: there are
> > > people for whom Wayland is a significant improvement over X, and
> > > so say to X users, "No, you're wrong, it _is_ ready." But again,
> > > that's incorrect; different people have different use-cases.
> > 
> 
> I'm Emacs user.... Oh mfg! it's not a flame emacs vs vi, just one 
> wayland vs Xorg
> 
> Xorg has targetted a lot of troubles that had since it was XFree86 as 
> could be the requirement to be the Xserver a setuid binary and a lot of 
> troubles that could the system hang since it required time ago 
> privileged RAM access as ioports. KMS was critical for this to happen. I 
> think Wayland will suffer something like directfb, I don't see now 
> advantages that makes wayland more useful than Xorg, useful for 
> smartphones? maybe yes, but Xorg is more supported.
> 
> Wayland needs a Xorg layer compatibility to be useful for a lot of 
> users, I want mean, the wayland Xserver, so finally they use the same 
> client server architecture that a lot of people critized from Xorg
> 
> So finally, who cares...
Um so xwayland?

Re: Wayland [was: Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Javier Martinez]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1904 bytes --]

El 17/9/25 a las 19:58, zyxhere💭 escribió:
> On Wed, 2025-09-17 at 19:57 +0200, Javier Martinez wrote:
>> El 17/9/25 a las 18:53, zyxhere💭 escribió:
>>> On Wed, 2025-09-17 at 08:47 -0500, David Bryant wrote:
>>>> But X11 still works for me, so why change? If it ain't broke, don't
>>>> fix it
>>>>
>>> On Wed, 2025-09-17 at 16:41 +1000, Alexis wrote:
>>>> My experience has been that statements like this aren't helpful,
>>>> because people assume "Not ready for my specific use-case(s)"
>>>> means "Not ready for anyone's use cases". That's a strong claim,
>>>> and demonstrably incorrect. And it goes both ways: there are
>>>> people for whom Wayland is a significant improvement over X, and
>>>> so say to X users, "No, you're wrong, it _is_ ready." But again,
>>>> that's incorrect; different people have different use-cases.
>>>
>>
>> I'm Emacs user.... Oh mfg! it's not a flame emacs vs vi, just one
>> wayland vs Xorg
>>
>> Xorg has targetted a lot of troubles that had since it was XFree86 as
>> could be the requirement to be the Xserver a setuid binary and a lot of
>> troubles that could the system hang since it required time ago
>> privileged RAM access as ioports. KMS was critical for this to happen. I
>> think Wayland will suffer something like directfb, I don't see now
>> advantages that makes wayland more useful than Xorg, useful for
>> smartphones? maybe yes, but Xorg is more supported.
>>
>> Wayland needs a Xorg layer compatibility to be useful for a lot of
>> users, I want mean, the wayland Xserver, so finally they use the same
>> client server architecture that a lot of people critized from Xorg
>>
>> So finally, who cares...
> Um so xwayland?
> 
That's is. Xwayland. People still want using applications that are not 
compatible with wayland, so they still need xorg compatibility layer, so 
finally they use Xorg protocol xD

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3145 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Dale]

Nuno Silva wrote:
> On 2025-09-17, Alexis wrote:
>
>> Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> writes:
> [...]
>>> For the record.  I'm not against Wayland.  It's just not ready for
>>> my
>>> use yet.
>> Disagree.
>>
>> My experience has been that statements like this aren't helpful,
>> because people assume "Not ready for my specific use-case(s)" means
>> "Not ready for anyone's use cases". That's a strong claim, and
>> demonstrably incorrect. And it goes both ways: there are people for
>> whom Wayland is a significant improvement over X, and so say to X
>> users, "No, you're wrong, it _is_ ready." But again, that's incorrect;
>> different people have different use-cases.
> Eh, no, it'd be much more valuable to know why someone says Wayland
> isn't for them, at all or yet, than to try to avoid making such
> objective remarks just because there's a risk that gets misinterpreted.
>
> If someone overreacts because they read "it doesn't work for my use
> case" as "nobody should use it", it's not really the person who wrote
> the former who should adapt.
>
>

This is true.  When I posted that Wayland wasn't ready for me, that's my
decision based on the fact that when I have tried to use Wayland in the
past, it didn't work like I wanted or expected.  Just because something
works for someone else doesn't mean it works for me.  I might add, what
works for me might not work for someone else either.  Thing is, what I
believe works for me isn't up to someone else.  It's up to me to
decide.  Just like it isn't up to me what works for someone else.  :-D 

This is why I posted earlier that some people use Wayland and it works
fine for them.  It's also why I said I'm not against Wayland either. 
There are lots of software out there that I may not like but others do. 
Examples.  Gnome.  KDE.  Another, Fluxbox.  I've tried Gnome but don't
like it.  Millions, likely MANY millions, of people do like and even
love Gnome.  It's not for me to tell someone else they should use KDE
just because I like it.  Gnome may work better and be better suited for
someone else.  KDE could even be way overkill or just plain not be
suited for their needs.  Same could be said for Fluxbox or any other
piece of software.  Should we mention systemd or openrc?  Some like one,
hate the other.  Use the one that works best for you. 

Point being, these are all personal decisions.  Whatever decision we
make, it's the right one, for each of us.  It's not right or wrong, it's
just our preference. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Javier Martinez]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1823 bytes --]

El 18/9/25 a las 0:29, Dale escribió:

> 
> This is true.  When I posted that Wayland wasn't ready for me, that's my
> decision based on the fact that when I have tried to use Wayland in the
> past, it didn't work like I wanted or expected.  Just because something
> works for someone else doesn't mean it works for me.  I might add, what
> works for me might not work for someone else either.  Thing is, what I
> believe works for me isn't up to someone else.  It's up to me to
> decide.  Just like it isn't up to me what works for someone else.  :-D
> 

There is not almost software with wayland native support. People that 
usually says "I use wayland", want means: I use Xorg with wayland driver....

> This is why I posted earlier that some people use Wayland and it works
> fine for them.  It's also why I said I'm not against Wayland either.
> There are lots of software out there that I may not like but others do.
> Examples.  Gnome.  KDE.  Another, Fluxbox.  I've tried Gnome but don't> like it.

Gnome? It sounds to me one stress cpu software, maybe a benchmark that 
uses gtk?, the other software you are pointing are window managers (kde 
is one desktop environment). Is that what you says?

  Millions, likely MANY millions, of people do like and even
> love Gnome.  

What would L. Torvalds will say about this????
Winter is coming, be prepared for flames....


> Gnome may work better and be better suited for
> someone else.
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)
> 

If you live in a really cold place, yeah!, gnome is really useful, you 
will save a lot of money in getting your home hot, your cpu will do this 
horrible task. But be care, with the latests cpus from intel or AMD you 
can burn your home since their operating temperature are near fahrenheit 
451....

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3145 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Dale]

Javier Martinez wrote:
> El 18/9/25 a las 0:29, Dale escribió:
>
>>
>> This is true.  When I posted that Wayland wasn't ready for me, that's my
>> decision based on the fact that when I have tried to use Wayland in the
>> past, it didn't work like I wanted or expected.  Just because something
>> works for someone else doesn't mean it works for me.  I might add, what
>> works for me might not work for someone else either.  Thing is, what I
>> believe works for me isn't up to someone else.  It's up to me to
>> decide.  Just like it isn't up to me what works for someone else.  :-D
>>
>
> There is not almost software with wayland native support. People that
> usually says "I use wayland", want means: I use Xorg with wayland
> driver....
>

Doesn't change that what one person likes or works for them may not work
for others or they may not like to use.  You come off as some sort of a
fan of Wayland that thinks everyone should only like and use Wayland. 
To use anything else makes them wrong even if they are not.  You like
Wayland.  Fine.  I don't care.  Wayland is not something I want to use
at this point.  Period.  Until it works for me in a way that I like
better than other software I currently use, I don't care what anyone
else thinks, likes or uses. 


>> This is why I posted earlier that some people use Wayland and it works
>> fine for them.  It's also why I said I'm not against Wayland either.
>> There are lots of software out there that I may not like but others do.
>> Examples.  Gnome.  KDE.  Another, Fluxbox.  I've tried Gnome but
>> don't> like it.
>
> Gnome? It sounds to me one stress cpu software, maybe a benchmark that
> uses gtk?, the other software you are pointing are window managers
> (kde is one desktop environment). Is that what you says?
>
>  Millions, likely MANY millions, of people do like and even
>> love Gnome.  
>
> What would L. Torvalds will say about this????
> Winter is coming, be prepared for flames....
>

To be honest, if I liked Gnome, I would not care what he thinks.  I use
and like KDE.  If someone else hates KDE, so what.  Why should I care? 
Just like I don't care if someone else uses Gnome or any other piece of
software like for example, systemd, which I don't like.  Others can use
systemd all they want.  Doesn't bother me at all.  I'm actually glad
they have it as a option.  Again, just because I don't like something
doesn't mean others can't or shouldn't be able to use it. 


>
>> Gnome may work better and be better suited for
>> someone else.
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-)
>>
>
> If you live in a really cold place, yeah!, gnome is really useful, you
> will save a lot of money in getting your home hot, your cpu will do
> this horrible task. But be care, with the latests cpus from intel or
> AMD you can burn your home since their operating temperature are near
> fahrenheit 451....


I live in a place that hits close to 100F each summer.  It's also very
humid.  My computer runs 24/7 unless the power is out.  It multi-tasks
to say the least.  My CPU stays fairly busy.  I've never heard of a CPU
burning a house down.  Sounds kinda silly.  LOL 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Alexis]

Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@ist.utl.pt> writes:

> If someone overreacts because they read "it doesn't work for my 
> use
> case" as "nobody should use it", it's not really the person who 
> wrote
> the former who should adapt.

As i wrote in the post in which i apologised for my mistake, i 
wasn't reading it that way, because what i was actually seeing on 
the screen was "It's just not ready for use yet", not "It's just 
not ready for _my_ use yet". It wasn't about me misinterpreting 
the latter sentence. And as i also said in that same post:

> i constantly see people claiming "Wayland is not ready for prime 
> time yet", purely on the basis of it not being ready for _their_ 
> specific use-case(s).

That's the necessary context for my response. i wasn't responding 
in isolation from the behaviours of people from various sides of 
the Xorg / Wayland debates i regularly encounter across the 
'net. And even if the premise on which i'd written my comments 
wasn't correct, i believe the comments themselves still stand.


Alexis.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Alexis]

Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@ist.utl.pt> writes:

>> i started doing my own investigations for Wayland because i 
>> realised
>> that it's coming down the pipe, and i wanted to add and update 
>> the
>> wiki's information about Wayland, to make sure that it's 
>> factually
>> correct. There haven't tended to be enough volunteers willing 
>> to work
>> on maintaining X, until the recent appearance of XLibre; most 
>> of the
>
> That's something I haven't had time to check further, but which 
> sounds
> slightly off, because NetBSD has been doing their own 
> modifications to
> Xorg.
>
> https://blog.netbsd.org/tnf/entry/x_org_on_netbsd_the

That link says:

> the way our "xsrc" repository is set up, it's effectively 
> functioning
> as a fork of X.Org that regularly pulls from upstream 
> freedesktop.org
> (but does not push back).

My understanding is that OpenBSD's Xenocara works the same way:

  https://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20060710160000

When i wrote "volunteers working on X", i was referring to the 
upstream X.


Alexis.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Javier Martinez]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1887 bytes --]

El 18/9/25 a las 3:16, Alexis escribió:
> Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@ist.utl.pt> writes:
> 
>> If someone overreacts because they read "it doesn't work for my use
>> case" as "nobody should use it", it's not really the person who wrote
>> the former who should adapt.
> 
> As i wrote in the post in which i apologised for my mistake, i wasn't 
> reading it that way, because what i was actually seeing on the screen 
> was "It's just not ready for use yet", not "It's just not ready for _my_ 
> use yet". It wasn't about me misinterpreting the latter sentence. And as 
> i also said in that same post:
> 
>> i constantly see people claiming "Wayland is not ready for prime time 
>> yet", purely on the basis of it not being ready for _their_ specific 
>> use-case(s).
> 
> That's the necessary context for my response. i wasn't responding in 
> isolation from the behaviours of people from various sides of the Xorg / 
> Wayland debates i regularly encounter across the 'net. And even if the 
> premise on which i'd written my comments wasn't correct, i believe the 
> comments themselves still stand.
> 
> 
> Alexis.
> 

There is not wayland vs xorg debate since there are not wayland users, 
just wayland xorg driver users and I doubt that this would change since 
a lot of software lacks wayland support and requires to run Xorg glue 
wayland layer

So, people that says I'm a wayland user and I'm really happy doesn't 
know that they are using xwayland xorg display driver to be able to use 
software as avidemux.

No debate, since actual wayland users are just Xorg users that uses 
wayland compositor, so who cares??

So, in resume, wayland is not ready for nothing because it runs under 
Xorg to support not wayland software. Do you need xterm?? in wayland?? 
run it as xorg driver. If not you will have a pretty display and nothing 
else.

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3145 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Alexis]

Javier Martinez <tazok.id0@gmail.com> writes:

> There is not wayland vs xorg debate since there are not wayland 
> users,
> just wayland xorg driver users

i'm currently in a Wayfire session on my laptop.

i'm running an Emacs client, Kitty, Firefox, and Keepassx.

In the terminal, i run:

  $ xlsclients 
  $

Now i use Wofi to start up an instance of The GIMP, and try again:

  $ xlsclients
  alexis-laptop  gimp-2.10

GIMP is the only thing using Xwayland.


Alexis.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Javier Martinez]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1092 bytes --]

El 18/9/25 a las 3:49, Alexis escribió:
> Javier Martinez <tazok.id0@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> There is not wayland vs xorg debate since there are not wayland users,
>> just wayland xorg driver users
> 
> i'm currently in a Wayfire session on my laptop.
> 
> i'm running an Emacs client, Kitty, Firefox, and Keepassx.
> 
> In the terminal, i run:
> 
>   $ xlsclients  $
> 
> Now i use Wofi to start up an instance of The GIMP, and try again:
> 
>   $ xlsclients
>   alexis-laptop  gimp-2.10
> 
> GIMP is the only thing using Xwayland.
> 
> 
> Alexis.
> 

Let's play urbanterror online. Can you?, and openarena?
And warzone2100?. Well something easier, pokerth. Or one chess game, 
what about xboard?

You have almost told us all software that has support of wayland.

How many software exists that does not know what wayland is?

How many software has wayland use flag available?

I see, xfce, dunst, firefox, gparted, spice, freerdp, vlc, parole, mpv 
and conky and some libraries and nothing more.

Please, be realistic, wayland support is tiny.

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3145 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Javier Martinez]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 815 bytes --]

El 18/9/25 a las 3:49, Alexis escribió:
> Javier Martinez <tazok.id0@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> There is not wayland vs xorg debate since there are not wayland users,
>> just wayland xorg driver users
> 
> i'm currently in a Wayfire session on my laptop.
> 
> i'm running an Emacs client, Kitty, Firefox, and Keepassx.
> 
> In the terminal, i run:
> 
>   $ xlsclients  $
> 
> Now i use Wofi to start up an instance of The GIMP, and try again:
> 
>   $ xlsclients
>   alexis-laptop  gimp-2.10
> 
> GIMP is the only thing using Xwayland.
> 
> 
> Alexis.
> 

You are using a wayland window manager under a Xorg server using wayland 
xorg driver.

Please, don't suppose that you are not one Xorg user, you are one Xorg 
user. If you want to be one pure wayland user dont use Xwayland.

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3145 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Alexis]

Javier Martinez <tazok.id0@gmail.com> writes:

> Let's play urbanterror online. Can you?, and openarena?
> And warzone2100?. Well something easier, pokerth. Or one chess 
> game,
> what about xboard?

Well, for a start, i'm basically not a gamer. :-) But throughout 
this discussion, my point has been that for some people, such as 
myself, Wayland is 'ready' enough; but for other people, it's 
not. i've not only mentioned The GIMP 2.x series as software that 
doesn't work directly on Wayland, and raised KiCAD as another 
possible example (because i think i've seen it come up on the 
Gentoo forums in this context). And indeed, i'm sure that they're 
far from the only examples.

As far as i'm concerned, Wayland is definitely not ready for 
everyone. There are a lot of people who still need Xorg, and for 
whom that won't change for a while yet. But not being ready for 
_everyone_ is not the same as not being ready for _anyone_.

The things i mentioned in my previous post were literally the only 
things running on my desktop at the time of my post. Yes, i do run 
various other things at various times, such as Easy Effects, 
pavucontrol, Inkscape, Scribus. But The GIMP stands out for me as 
one of the few programs _i_ regularly use that still needs 
Xwayland. i do a lot of other stuff in the terminal, or in Emacs 
(such as programming, documentation preparation, email, etc.).

Are my software pattern usages unusual? Perhaps. But i know i do 
regularly encounter people online for whom Wayland does what they 
need, just as i regularly encounter people for whom Wayland 
_doesn't_ do what they need (and for all i know, may never do).

i first checked out Wayland some years ago, when i was using 
Void. i just couldn't get it to work satisfactorily for me 
then. It wasn't ready for my use-case. It was more recently that i 
decided to check it out again. i found it was now ready for my 
use-case. But i'm very aware that there are many people for whom 
it is definitely not ready, such as the blind person whose blog 
post i referenced up-thread.

Me saying "Wayland is ready for my use case" doesn't mean i think 
Xorg should die. Far from it. i hope that enough people stand up 
to volunteer to help maintain and improve Xorg and its derivatives 
that it can continue to exist indefinitely.


Alexis.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Alexis]

Javier Martinez <tazok.id0@gmail.com> writes:

> You are using a wayland window manager under a Xorg server using
> wayland xorg driver.

There is no Xorg server running on my machine other than the 
Xwayland instance:

# ps ax | grep X
 3576 tty1     Sl+    0:00 Xwayland :0 -rootless -core -terminate 
 -listenfd 26 -listenfd 27 -displayfd 67 -wm 64
12043 pts/21   S+     0:00 grep --color=auto X
#

And, as my use of xlsclients(1) in my earlier post shows, The GIMP 
was the only program using Xwayland.

> Please, don't suppose that you are not one Xorg user, you are 
> one Xorg
> user. If you want to be one pure wayland user dont use Xwayland.

Er .... i never claimed to be a pure Wayland user? i certainly 
still use Xorg in the form of Xwayland, yes, even though, as i've 
noted, i don't need it for most of the programs i usually run. But 
it's fundamentally a Wayland environment. If i run a BBC B 
emulator on my desktop, am i 'really' fundamentally using a BBC B 
as my desktop environment?

It feels like you might be assuming that because i'm happy with 
Wayland, i'm anti-X. As my last post to the list indicates, i'm 
not:

> Me saying "Wayland is ready for my use case" doesn't mean i 
> think Xorg should die. Far from it. i hope that enough people 
> stand up to volunteer to help maintain and improve Xorg and its 
> derivatives that it can continue to exist indefinitely.


Alexis.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Javier Martinez]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3295 bytes --]

El 18/9/25 a las 4:30, Alexis escribió:
> Javier Martinez <tazok.id0@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Let's play urbanterror online. Can you?, and openarena?
>> And warzone2100?. Well something easier, pokerth. Or one chess game,
>> what about xboard?
> 
> Well, for a start, i'm basically not a gamer. :-) But throughout this 
> discussion, my point has been that for some people, such as myself, 
> Wayland is 'ready' enough; but for other people, it's not. i've not only 
> mentioned The GIMP 2.x series as software that doesn't work directly on 
> Wayland, and raised KiCAD as another possible example (because i think 
> i've seen it come up on the Gentoo forums in this context). And indeed, 
> i'm sure that they're far from the only examples.
> 
> As far as i'm concerned, Wayland is definitely not ready for everyone. 
> There are a lot of people who still need Xorg, and for whom that won't 
> change for a while yet. But not being ready for _everyone_ is not the 
> same as not being ready for _anyone_.
> 
> The things i mentioned in my previous post were literally the only 
> things running on my desktop at the time of my post. Yes, i do run 
> various other things at various times, such as Easy Effects, 
> pavucontrol, Inkscape, Scribus. But The GIMP stands out for me as one of 
> the few programs _i_ regularly use that still needs Xwayland. i do a lot 
> of other stuff in the terminal, or in Emacs (such as programming, 
> documentation preparation, email, etc.).
> 
> Are my software pattern usages unusual? Perhaps. But i know i do 
> regularly encounter people online for whom Wayland does what they need, 
> just as i regularly encounter people for whom Wayland _doesn't_ do what 
> they need (and for all i know, may never do).
> 
> i first checked out Wayland some years ago, when i was using Void. i 
> just couldn't get it to work satisfactorily for me then. It wasn't ready 
> for my use-case. It was more recently that i decided to check it out 
> again. i found it was now ready for my use-case. But i'm very aware that 
> there are many people for whom it is definitely not ready, such as the 
> blind person whose blog post i referenced up-thread.
> 
> Me saying "Wayland is ready for my use case" doesn't mean i think Xorg 
> should die. Far from it. i hope that enough people stand up to volunteer 
> to help maintain and improve Xorg and its derivatives that it can 
> continue to exist indefinitely.
> 
> 
> Alexis.
> 

I'm neither a gamer, I just told you software that lacks support of wayland.

  Please, get realized that you are not using Wayland, you are using 
Xorg with a wayland driver. The compositor (your wayland) runs under a 
Xorg server, some applications could run using only "wayland calls" but 
always under Xorg. So it's a fiction that you are a wayland user, as 
wayland only works in your setup as could "compton" software work with 
another users.

If you want to use wayland trully DONT USE xwayland. It's easy. If you 
want to be a wayland user don't run it under Xorg. If you run it under 
Xorg (to be able to use Xorg software using Xwayland) you are just one 
Xorg user that uses a different Xorg driver from me. I user modesetting, 
you are using wayland. That's all.



[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3145 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Javier Martinez]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1782 bytes --]

El 18/9/25 a las 4:38, Alexis escribió:
> Javier Martinez <tazok.id0@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> You are using a wayland window manager under a Xorg server using
>> wayland xorg driver.
> 
> There is no Xorg server running on my machine other than the Xwayland 
> instance:
> 
> # ps ax | grep X
> 3576 tty1     Sl+    0:00 Xwayland :0 -rootless -core -terminate - 
> listenfd 26 -listenfd 27 -displayfd 67 -wm 64
> 12043 pts/21   S+     0:00 grep --color=auto X
> #
> 
> And, as my use of xlsclients(1) in my earlier post shows, The GIMP was 
> the only program using Xwayland.
> 
>> Please, don't suppose that you are not one Xorg user, you are one Xorg
>> user. If you want to be one pure wayland user dont use Xwayland.
> 
> Er .... i never claimed to be a pure Wayland user? i certainly still use 
> Xorg in the form of Xwayland, yes, even though, as i've noted, i don't 
> need it for most of the programs i usually run. But it's fundamentally a 
> Wayland environment. If i run a BBC B emulator on my desktop, am i 
> 'really' fundamentally using a BBC B as my desktop environment?
> 
> It feels like you might be assuming that because i'm happy with Wayland, 
> i'm anti-X. As my last post to the list indicates, i'm not:
> 
>> Me saying "Wayland is ready for my use case" doesn't mean i think Xorg 
>> should die. Far from it. i hope that enough people stand up to 
>> volunteer to help maintain and improve Xorg and its derivatives that 
>> it can continue to exist indefinitely.
> 
> 
> Alexis.
> 

I'm just pointing you that you are not a wayland user, You are just a 
Xorg user that uses wayland as compositor. That's all.

If you want to be a wayland user, use wayland not Xorg that it's what 
you are doing now.

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3145 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Javier Martinez]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1708 bytes --]

El 18/9/25 a las 4:38, Alexis escribió:
> Javier Martinez <tazok.id0@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> You are using a wayland window manager under a Xorg server using
>> wayland xorg driver.
> 
> There is no Xorg server running on my machine other than the Xwayland 
> instance:
> 
> # ps ax | grep X
> 3576 tty1     Sl+    0:00 Xwayland :0 -rootless -core -terminate - 
> listenfd 26 -listenfd 27 -displayfd 67 -wm 64
> 12043 pts/21   S+     0:00 grep --color=auto X
> #
> 
> And, as my use of xlsclients(1) in my earlier post shows, The GIMP was 
> the only program using Xwayland.
> 
>> Please, don't suppose that you are not one Xorg user, you are one Xorg
>> user. If you want to be one pure wayland user dont use Xwayland.
> 
> Er .... i never claimed to be a pure Wayland user? i certainly still use 
> Xorg in the form of Xwayland, yes, even though, as i've noted, i don't 
> need it for most of the programs i usually run. But it's fundamentally a 
> Wayland environment. If i run a BBC B emulator on my desktop, am i 
> 'really' fundamentally using a BBC B as my desktop environment?
> 
> It feels like you might be assuming that because i'm happy with Wayland, 
> i'm anti-X. As my last post to the list indicates, i'm not:
> 
>> Me saying "Wayland is ready for my use case" doesn't mean i think Xorg 
>> should die. Far from it. i hope that enough people stand up to 
>> volunteer to help maintain and improve Xorg and its derivatives that 
>> it can continue to exist indefinitely.
> 
> 
> Alexis.
> 

 From the manual:

NAME
        Xwayland - an X server for running X clients under Wayland.

You are using one X server that uses X protocol.

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3145 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Alexis]

Javier Martinez <tazok.id0@gmail.com> writes:

> I'm neither a gamer, I just told you software that lacks support 
> of
> wayland.

Okay, fair enough.

>  Please, get realized that you are not using Wayland, you are 
>  using
>  Xorg with a wayland driver. The compositor (your wayland) runs 
>  under
>  a Xorg server

It does not. End of story. As i demonstrated with my `ps ax` 
output.

i've run various window managers over the years, including Fluxbox 
and Compiz, on top of Xorg. Wayland compositors do not run on top 
of X. They just don't.

A 'compositor' is _not_ defined as "something that runs on X".

>  some applications could run using only "wayland calls"
>  but always under Xorg.

No.

> If you want to use wayland trully DONT USE xwayland. It's 
> easy. If you
> want to be a wayland user don't run it under Xorg.

i'm not, as i've demonstrated. And people can test this for 
themselves. They can start up a Wayland compositor and check if an 
`X` process - not an `Xwayland` process - appears in the process 
list for their system. (In the case of Wayfire, it starts up an 
Xwayland process on the user's behalf, i.e. _after_ it has itself 
started.)

> If you run it under
> Xorg (to be able to use Xorg software using Xwayland) you are 
> just one
> Xorg user that uses a different Xorg driver from me. I user
> modesetting, you are using wayland. That's all.

No.

This is the sort of misinformation on this topic that causes me so 
much frustration, and why i talk about how i've been working on 
making sure the wiki contains accurate information about this 
stuff.

Quoting the Wayland FAQ, https://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html:

> Is wayland replacing the X server?
>
> Mostly, yes. User sessions are able to run under Wayland today, 
> via a
> number of compositors: Weston itself as well as Enlightenment, 
> GNOME
> Shell, KDE, and a number of others under development. With most
> toolkits having Wayland ports, as well as frameworks such as 
> GStreamer
> and SDL, it's perfectly possible to run a purely native Wayland
> session as your desktop.
>
> That being said, there are some clients which rely on X11, and 
> always
> will be. To that end, Xwayland provides a plugin for Wayland
> compositors, running a real X server. This gives legacy clients 
> a real
> and compliant X11 platform to run on, displayed side by side 
> with
> native Wayland clients in your Wayland session.

This particular subthread is getting absurd. i encourage people to 
test out for themselves how things actually work, and to learn 
about how Wayland works by looking at relevant resources cited on 
the wiki.


Alexis.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Alexis]

Javier Martinez <tazok.id0@gmail.com> writes:

> From the manual:
>
> NAME
>        Xwayland - an X server for running X clients under 
>        Wayland.
>
> You are using one X server that uses X protocol.

And as i said in my last post, a Wayland compositor can be started 
_without_ an instance of Xwayland; and on my system, an Xwayland 
instance gets started _after_ Wayfire has been started. How has 
Wayfire been able to start without a running instance of X, either 
`X`, or `Xwayland`?

If you disagree with the information provided by the Wayland 
project itself at https://wayland.freedesktop.org/, i would 
suggest you have a discussion with them about changing their 
documentation; if you succeed in doing so, downstream docs that 
reference that information can be changed accordingly. 


Alexis.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Eli Schwartz]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1966 bytes --]

On 9/17/25 9:58 PM, Javier Martinez wrote:

> Let's play urbanterror online. Can you?, and openarena?
> And warzone2100?. Well something easier, pokerth. Or one chess game,
> what about xboard?
> 
> You have almost told us all software that has support of wayland.
> 
> How many software exists that does not know what wayland is?
> 
> How many software has wayland use flag available?
> 
> I see, xfce, dunst, firefox, gparted, spice, freerdp, vlc, parole, mpv
> and conky and some libraries and nothing more.
> 
> Please, be realistic, wayland support is tiny.


I'm quite happy with my existing Xorg setup and see no compelling urge
to change. My DE doesn't even support wayland and my DE is a heck of a
lot more important to me than the display tech.

But I know how this works and I will push back against bad arguments
used to defend even things I'm happy with.

"Most" software uses Gtk or Qt for display purposes. You get a *lot* of
mileage out of your toolkit seamlessly supporting X / wayland, so you
don't need to. Packages which have a "wayland" USE flag are like
packages which have an "X" USE flag: relatively uncommon. It indicates
the package does something "special", when running on wayland, that
requires specific custom code which the *GUI Toolkit* cannot
automatically handle, and which *also* requires calling directly into
wayland-client/wlroots/QWayland/gdk_wayland to code around it.

But the garden path software does not CARE what it is running on so it
has no USE.

To be even more specific: USE=wayland does not mean, "supports running
on wayland", it means "has to be recompiled before running on wayland".


Using "number of packages without USE=wayland" to measure "packages that
run via xorg emulation instead of natively on wayland", is very dumb. Sorry.

It's like saying "many packages don't have USE=X, that must mean they
don't support Xorg -- only wayland".


-- 
Eli Schwartz

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 236 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Eli Schwartz]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1040 bytes --]

On 9/17/25 10:42 PM, Javier Martinez wrote:

> I'm neither a gamer, I just told you software that lacks support of
> wayland.
> 
>  Please, get realized that you are not using Wayland, you are using Xorg
> with a wayland driver. The compositor (your wayland) runs under a Xorg
> server, some applications could run using only "wayland calls" but
> always under Xorg. So it's a fiction that you are a wayland user, as
> wayland only works in your setup as could "compton" software work with
> another users.


This is incorrect. You are not in possession of any of the facts.

Wayland does not run under an X server.

X runs under wayland. That is what Xwayland is. It is a rebuilt copy of
Xorg, that is wrapped as a wayland application. It allows running
Xorg-only software, under an Xorg server, and displays that Xorg server
*inside* the top level display, which is wayland.

Xwayland is a kind of container environment. It only has to run upon
launching an application that requires Xorg.


-- 
Eli Schwartz

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 236 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Javier Martinez]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4020 bytes --]

El 18/9/25 a las 5:06, Alexis escribió:

> It does not. End of story. As i demonstrated with my `ps ax` output.
> 
> i've run various window managers over the years, including Fluxbox and 
> Compiz, on top of Xorg. Wayland compositors do not run on top of X. They 
> just don't.
> 
> A 'compositor' is _not_ defined as "something that runs on X".
> 


ps just reads /proc numeric entries, One of them is Xwayland that is a 
Xserver created by wayland folks that talks Xorg protocol to allow you 
run xclients. So Xwayland IS your Xorg that uses a wayland driver as 
compositor.


>>  some applications could run using only "wayland calls"
>>  but always under Xorg.
> 
> No.
> 

Great argumentation, any arguments?


> i'm not, as i've demonstrated. And people can test this for themselves. 
> They can start up a Wayland compositor and check if an `X` process - not 
> an `Xwayland` process - appears in the process list for their system. 
> (In the case of Wayfire, it starts up an Xwayland process on the user's 
> behalf, i.e. _after_ it has itself started.)
> 

If you want, link Xwayland to X to see your needed X process. Please 
don't think that Xorg is a X called process, X usually is a link to 
Xorg, X11 or whatever be. Also please.... try to understand how ps works 
and what the comm is. The comm is just the name of the executable and 
Xorg is not an X named process, is one server that talks the Xorg 
protocol, is Xnest a X windows server??? with your arguments not, 
because it's not called X, BUT IT'S an Xserver.




> No.
> 
> This is the sort of misinformation on this topic that causes me so much 
> frustration, and why i talk about how i've been working on making sure 
> the wiki contains accurate information about this stuff.
> 

Great arguments... if any.... Can you tell me please... why not?

Xwayland is linked with:

libX11.so.6 => /usr/lib64/libX11.so.6 (0x000077bb55de2000)

And libX11 is the core of Xorg:

  https://www.x.org/releases/current/doc/libX11/libX11/libX11.html

so you are using a Xorg server, made by wayland folks, but JUST and 
Xserver, one server that understands xlib calls and xorg protocol to be 
able to launch one xterm.

> Quoting the Wayland FAQ, https://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html:
> 
>> Is wayland replacing the X server?
>>
>> Mostly, yes. User sessions are able to run under Wayland today, via a
>> number of compositors: Weston itself as well as Enlightenment, GNOME
>> Shell, KDE, and a number of others under development. With most
>> toolkits having Wayland ports, as well as frameworks such as GStreamer
>> and SDL, it's perfectly possible to run a purely native Wayland
>> session as your desktop.
>>

To systemd developer, Lennart Pottering, systemd could be functional, 
but sorry, other persons could disagree.

>> That being said, there are some clients which rely on X11, and always
>> will be. To that end, Xwayland provides a plugin for Wayland
>> compositors, running a real X server. This gives legacy clients a real
>> and compliant X11 platform to run on, displayed side by side with
>> native Wayland clients in your Wayland session.
> 
> This particular subthread is getting absurd. i encourage people to test 
> out for themselves how things actually work, and to learn about how 
> Wayland works by looking at relevant resources cited on the wiki.
> 
> 
> Alexis.
> 
Xwayland dont provide a plugin, Xwayland IS A XSERVER. One X server that 
gets attached to one DISPLAY, the :0 in your command line expecting 
clients to be connected using X protocol since its linked to libX11 to 
understand it.

Sorry, you are using X protocol and by extension one Xorg COMPLIANT 
server. You don't like Xorg, dont use Xorg compliants servers. It's 
easy, DONT use Xorg protocol and so, dont use Xwayland (starts with X 
because is a Xserver as Xnest is, or Xvnc, or Xephyr, all Xservers thats 
are XSERVERS and are not called X....)


[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3145 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Javier Martinez]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1154 bytes --]

El 18/9/25 a las 5:12, Alexis escribió:
> Javier Martinez <tazok.id0@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> From the manual:
>>
>> NAME
>>        Xwayland - an X server for running X clients under        Wayland.
>>
>> You are using one X server that uses X protocol.
> 
> And as i said in my last post, a Wayland compositor can be started 
> _without_ an instance of Xwayland; and on my system, an Xwayland 
> instance gets started _after_ Wayfire has been started. How has Wayfire 
> been able to start without a running instance of X, either `X`, or 
> `Xwayland`?
> 
> If you disagree with the information provided by the Wayland project 
> itself at https://wayland.freedesktop.org/, i would suggest you have a 
> discussion with them about changing their documentation; if you succeed 
> in doing so, downstream docs that reference that information can be 
> changed accordingly.
> 
> Alexis.
> 

And this is when you are using wayland as is, WITHOUT an instance of 
Xwayland, since Xwayland is wayland for X.

And by this reason I told you several times that if you want to be a 
real wayland user DON'T use Xwayland.

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3145 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Javier Martinez]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1306 bytes --]

El 18/9/25 a las 5:25, Eli Schwartz escribió:
> On 9/17/25 10:42 PM, Javier Martinez wrote:
> 
>> I'm neither a gamer, I just told you software that lacks support of
>> wayland.
>>
>>   Please, get realized that you are not using Wayland, you are using Xorg
>> with a wayland driver. The compositor (your wayland) runs under a Xorg
>> server, some applications could run using only "wayland calls" but
>> always under Xorg. So it's a fiction that you are a wayland user, as
>> wayland only works in your setup as could "compton" software work with
>> another users.
> 
> 
> This is incorrect. You are not in possession of any of the facts.
> 
> Wayland does not run under an X server.
> 
> X runs under wayland. That is what Xwayland is. It is a rebuilt copy of
> Xorg, that is wrapped as a wayland application. It allows running
> Xorg-only software, under an Xorg server, and displays that Xorg server
> *inside* the top level display, which is wayland.
> 
> Xwayland is a kind of container environment. It only has to run upon
> launching an application that requires Xorg.
> 
> 

Name it as you wish, is one Xserver that renders with wayland since 
wayland is just one compositor. And this server must run on top to be 
able to talk with not compliant wayland clients.

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3145 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Javier Martinez]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2434 bytes --]

El 18/9/25 a las 5:13, Eli Schwartz escribió:
> On 9/17/25 9:58 PM, Javier Martinez wrote:
> 
>> Let's play urbanterror online. Can you?, and openarena?
>> And warzone2100?. Well something easier, pokerth. Or one chess game,
>> what about xboard?
>>
>> You have almost told us all software that has support of wayland.
>>
>> How many software exists that does not know what wayland is?
>>
>> How many software has wayland use flag available?
>>
>> I see, xfce, dunst, firefox, gparted, spice, freerdp, vlc, parole, mpv
>> and conky and some libraries and nothing more.
>>
>> Please, be realistic, wayland support is tiny.
> 
> 
> I'm quite happy with my existing Xorg setup and see no compelling urge
> to change. My DE doesn't even support wayland and my DE is a heck of a
> lot more important to me than the display tech.
> 
> But I know how this works and I will push back against bad arguments
> used to defend even things I'm happy with.
> 
> "Most" software uses Gtk or Qt for display purposes. You get a *lot* of
> mileage out of your toolkit seamlessly supporting X / wayland, so you
> don't need to. Packages which have a "wayland" USE flag are like
> packages which have an "X" USE flag: relatively uncommon. It indicates
> the package does something "special", when running on wayland, that
> requires specific custom code which the *GUI Toolkit* cannot
> automatically handle, and which *also* requires calling directly into
> wayland-client/wlroots/QWayland/gdk_wayland to code around it.
> 
> But the garden path software does not CARE what it is running on so it
> has no USE.
> 
> To be even more specific: USE=wayland does not mean, "supports running
> on wayland", it means "has to be recompiled before running on wayland".
> 
> 
> Using "number of packages without USE=wayland" to measure "packages that
> run via xorg emulation instead of natively on wayland", is very dumb. Sorry.
> 
> It's like saying "many packages don't have USE=X, that must mean they
> don't support Xorg -- only wayland".
> 
> 

I don't use wayland.

The wayland USE flag is needed to be able to talk with wayland, and the 
X use flag is needed to talk with X. Not all packages has X use flag but 
needs that their graphical libraries had support to since they need to 
talk with the Xserver. Can you run firefox on wayland without wayland 
use flag and WITHOUT using xwayland?



[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3145 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Alexis]

At this point, i must conclude that you're not discussing this in 
good faith, since not only has Gentoo dev Eli also noted how your 
understanding is incorrect, but you also seem to be implying that 
i'm saying things i didn't say:

Javier Martinez <tazok.id0@gmail.com> writes:

> Xwayland dont provide a plugin, Xwayland IS A XSERVER.

i haven't denied this at all. For instance, i've said:

> There is no Xorg server running on my machine other than the 
> Xwayland instance

which implies that i regard Xwayland as an Xorg server, but also, 
i've explicitly said:

> > Xwayland runs an X server on top of a Wayland compositor

You wrote:

> Sorry, you are using X protocol and by extension one Xorg 
> COMPLIANT
> server.

i've already addressed this, as has Eli.

> You don't like Xorg

i've never said i don't like Xorg. What i _have_ said, twice now, 
is:

> Me saying "Wayland is ready for my use case" doesn't mean i 
> think
> Xorg should die. Far from it. i hope that enough people stand up 
> to
> volunteer to help maintain and improve Xorg and its derivatives 
> that
> it can continue to exist indefinitely.

So i'm not sure it's going to be productive for me to engage with 
you much further.


Alexis.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Javier Martinez]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2195 bytes --]

El 18/9/25 a las 6:15, Alexis escribió:
> 
> At this point, i must conclude that you're not discussing this in good 
> faith, since not only has Gentoo dev Eli also noted how your 
> understanding is incorrect, but you also seem to be implying that i'm 
> saying things i didn't say:

You did not give arguments at all.

Linus Torvalds is god, has him to be always correct by this reason??. Do 
you know what "ad hominem fallacy" is?


> 
> i haven't denied this at all. For instance, i've said:
> 
>> There is no Xorg server running on my machine other than the Xwayland 
>> instance
> 

Xwayland IS one Xorg server, talks Xprotocol and get's rendered by 
wayland. X it's the protocol that it's talked by Xorg or by Xfree86 that 
it's talked by Xwayland.

> which implies that i regard Xwayland as an Xorg server, but also, i've 
> explicitly said:
> 
>> > Xwayland runs an X server on top of a Wayland compositor
> 
> You wrote:
> 
>> Sorry, you are using X protocol and by extension one Xorg COMPLIANT
>> server.
> 
> i've already addressed this, as has Eli.

I just told you, that if you want being a wayland user just use wayland 
protocol, not Xorg ones. If you use Xwayland you are using xorg since 
you are using his protocol. It's easy to understand.

> 
>> You don't like Xorg
> 
> i've never said i don't like Xorg. What i _have_ said, twice now, is:
> 
>> Me saying "Wayland is ready for my use case" doesn't mean i think
>> Xorg should die. Far from it. i hope that enough people stand up to
>> volunteer to help maintain and improve Xorg and its derivatives that
>> it can continue to exist indefinitely.
> 
> So i'm not sure it's going to be productive for me to engage with you 
> much further.
> 
> 
> Alexis.
> 

And I have never told you that you like or not Xorg. Can you please 
point me when I told you this???

You are talking about that wayland gives you what you need while you are 
using Xorg as you are using his protocol with Xwayland. It's totally 
incoherent. First use wayland in standalone mode, using it's own 
protocol, without Xwayland, after that talk about if it can or not 
substitute Xorg.

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3145 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Javier Martinez]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1694 bytes --]

El 18/9/25 a las 5:25, Eli Schwartz escribió:
> On 9/17/25 10:42 PM, Javier Martinez wrote:
> 
>> I'm neither a gamer, I just told you software that lacks support of
>> wayland.
>>
>>   Please, get realized that you are not using Wayland, you are using Xorg
>> with a wayland driver. The compositor (your wayland) runs under a Xorg
>> server, some applications could run using only "wayland calls" but
>> always under Xorg. So it's a fiction that you are a wayland user, as
>> wayland only works in your setup as could "compton" software work with
>> another users.
> 
> 
> This is incorrect. You are not in possession of any of the facts.
> 
> Wayland does not run under an X server.
> 
> X runs under wayland. That is what Xwayland is. It is a rebuilt copy of
> Xorg, that is wrapped as a wayland application. It allows running
> Xorg-only software, under an Xorg server, and displays that Xorg server
> *inside* the top level display, which is wayland.
> 
> Xwayland is a kind of container environment. It only has to run upon
> launching an application that requires Xorg.
> 
> 

You run one X compliant server called Xwayland that listen for x clients 
and gets rendered using wayland.

Does  modesetting run under Xorg server or in top of it???? Since it's 
thanks KMS that it's a kernel function, of course Xorg runs over it as 
every hardware related functions runs under Xorg and not over it. Can 
you please point me why:

The compositor (your wayland) runs under a Xorg
>> server


this affirmation is incorrect since rendering usually it's a hardware 
related function and because of this should run under and not in top of 
Xorg?




[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3145 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Alexis]

Javier Martinez <tazok.id0@gmail.com> writes:

> El 18/9/25 a las 6:15, Alexis escribió:
>> At this point, i must conclude that you're not discussing this 
>> in
>> good faith, since not only has Gentoo dev Eli also noted how 
>> your
>> understanding is incorrect, but you also seem to be implying 
>> that
>> i'm saying things i didn't say:
>
> You did not give arguments at all.

i've given evidence to support my claims, which others can test 
for themselves. The only 'evidence' you've provided is the 
Xwayland man page, which does not say what you think it's saying; 
and even if it was, again, what you think it's saying can be 
tested by others. Whereas you seem to have it as an act of faith 
that you're the only one who _really_ understands how Wayland 
works, and anyone disagreeing with you - even the Wayland project 
itself - is wrong.

> Linus Torvalds is god, has him to be always correct by this
> reason??. Do you know what "ad hominem fallacy" is?

Yes; my definition is basically the definition provided by the 
Oxford dictionary:

> (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather 
> than the position they are maintaining.

i believe that my chain of posts demonstrate that my arguments 
have primarily involved technically-based rebuttals, either 
providing technical evidence or asking technical questions, at 
least one of which you've not addressed: How Wayfire can start 
_before_ Xwayland gets started.

It's not 'ad hominem' to say that "On the basis of my interactions 
with you, I don't believe you're having this discussion in good 
faith". By saying that, i'm not making any claims about the 
correctness or otherwise of your claims.

Nor does 'ad hominem' mean the same as 'argument from authority', 
which _seems_ to be what you actually mean here? But in referring 
to what Eli has said, i wasn't doing so because i believe him to 
be omniscient, but because he's a well-respected distro dev - he's 
previously been an Arch dev, 
cf. e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24587561 - with 
extensive knowledge in various areas based on many years of 
experience. He knows how many things work. And _my_ years of 
experience of Eli - including my time on the Void team - have 
found his analysis of things is usually correct; i actually can't 
think of any instances otherwise. i've learned a lot, over the 
years, in reading Eli's input on various topics. He's earned my 
respect.

You seem to be claiming that it's inappropriate to defer to people 
with relevant knowledge and/or expertise, as though i said "Linux 
is written entirely in Rust", and Linus himself said, "Um, no", 
and i said "Wow, ad hominem much?"

> And I have never told you that you like or not Xorg. Can you 
> please
> point me when I told you this???

i literally quoted you saying in an email addressed to me, "You 
don't like Xorg"!

Yeah, time for me to bow out, although i'm sure you'll have 
further things to say in response to what i've written above.

But i want to say something to others reading this subthread:

Please keep in mind how much volunteer time is wasted by people 
"not in possession of any of the facts" making claims that have to 
be corrected by volunteers in order to minimise the amount of 
problems faced by people working on the basis of those claims. And 
it becomes increasingly frustrating to have do this again and 
again and again, particularly for devs who are already doing so 
much.


Alexis.

--

"The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I 
exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am 
nothing.'
"'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It 
could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so 
therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
"'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly 
vanishes in a puff of logic.
"'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove 
that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra 
crossing."
— Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Javier Martinez]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2698 bytes --]

El 18/9/25 a las 5:13, Eli Schwartz escribió:
> On 9/17/25 9:58 PM, Javier Martinez wrote:
> 
>> Let's play urbanterror online. Can you?, and openarena?
>> And warzone2100?. Well something easier, pokerth. Or one chess game,
>> what about xboard?
>>
>> You have almost told us all software that has support of wayland.
>>
>> How many software exists that does not know what wayland is?
>>
>> How many software has wayland use flag available?
>>
>> I see, xfce, dunst, firefox, gparted, spice, freerdp, vlc, parole, mpv
>> and conky and some libraries and nothing more.
>>
>> Please, be realistic, wayland support is tiny.
> 
> 
> I'm quite happy with my existing Xorg setup and see no compelling urge
> to change. My DE doesn't even support wayland and my DE is a heck of a
> lot more important to me than the display tech.
> 
> But I know how this works and I will push back against bad arguments
> used to defend even things I'm happy with.
> 
> "Most" software uses Gtk or Qt for display purposes. You get a *lot* of
> mileage out of your toolkit seamlessly supporting X / wayland, so you
> don't need to. Packages which have a "wayland" USE flag are like
> packages which have an "X" USE flag: relatively uncommon. It indicates
> the package does something "special", when running on wayland, that
> requires specific custom code which the *GUI Toolkit* cannot
> automatically handle, and which *also* requires calling directly into
> wayland-client/wlroots/QWayland/gdk_wayland to code around it.
> 
> But the garden path software does not CARE what it is running on so it
> has no USE.
> 
> To be even more specific: USE=wayland does not mean, "supports running
> on wayland", it means "has to be recompiled before running on wayland".
> 
> 
> Using "number of packages without USE=wayland" to measure "packages that
> run via xorg emulation instead of natively on wayland", is very dumb. Sorry.
> 
> It's like saying "many packages don't have USE=X, that must mean they
> don't support Xorg -- only wayland".
> 
> 

The only argument required related to wayland support is the need of 
using one Xorg compliant server to be able to run common applications 
over wayland. No more arguments are needed to describe their lack of 
support,

Are you sure that for example with conky that wayland and X use flags 
are not required to be able to run properly conky under wayland and Xorg?

Because I think those use flags directly indicates conky how to use 
displays. so without wayland use flag you cant use conky in wayland. And 
without X you can't use conky displaying under Xorg since both manages 
displays in a different way..

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3145 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Javier Martinez]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6951 bytes --]

El 18/9/25 a las 7:13, Alexis escribió:

> i've given evidence to support my claims, which others can test for 
> themselves. The only 'evidence' you've provided is the Xwayland man 
> page, which does not say what you think it's saying; and even if it was, 
> again, what you think it's saying can be tested by others. Whereas you 
> seem to have it as an act of faith that you're the only one who _really_ 
> understands how Wayland works, and anyone disagreeing with you - even 
> the Wayland project itself - is wrong.
> 

Evidences?? which evidences have you given can you point at least one?
Wayland proyects developers will talk always that their software is 
great, since they are their developers, third party recognize one 
software as good or bad, not the developer, and by this reason they HAD 
to develope one Xorg server to use legacy software.
I have never read one software developer claiming that their software is 
horrible.



>> Linus Torvalds is god, has him to be always correct by this
>> reason??. Do you know what "ad hominem fallacy" is?
> 
> Yes; my definition is basically the definition provided by the Oxford 
> dictionary:
> 
>> (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the 
>> position they are maintaining.
> 

So, your claim is that as Eli Schwartz is one gentoo developer, he 
always is right and I'm always be wrong, is it?

Eli, one question, have you ever done RAM forensics?

If not, does it mean that if I've done it (as I did) in a discussion I 
will always be right and you will always be wrong????



> i believe that my chain of posts demonstrate that my arguments have 
> primarily involved technically-based rebuttals, either providing 
> technical evidence or asking technical questions, at least one of which 
> you've not addressed: How Wayfire can start _before_ Xwayland gets started.
> 

You did not demonstrate nothing, the only thing you demonstrate is that 
you think you are not using Xorg while you are using it since you are 
using his protocol because you need it as for gimp.


> It's not 'ad hominem' to say that "On the basis of my interactions with 
> you, I don't believe you're having this discussion in good faith". By 
> saying that, i'm not making any claims about the correctness or 
> otherwise of your claims.
> 
> Nor does 'ad hominem' mean the same as 'argument from authority', which 
> _seems_ to be what you actually mean here? But in referring to what Eli 
> has said, i wasn't doing so because i believe him to be omniscient, but 
> because he's a well-respected distro dev - he's previously been an Arch 
> dev, cf. e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24587561 - with 
> extensive knowledge in various areas based on many years of experience. 

You point that as Eli is a gentoo developer AND I'm not... Are two 
fallacies in one, the first one authority one because Eli is a developer 
so he is always right, the other one is one Ad hominem, since I'm not a 
gentoo developer, I'm wrong for sure.

> He knows how many things work. And _my_ years of experience of Eli - 
> including my time on the Void team - have found his analysis of things 
> is usually correct; i actually can't think of any instances otherwise. 
> i've learned a lot, over the years, in reading Eli's input on various 
> topics. He's earned my respect.
> 

You could perfectly be a wayland mantainer, this is not a warranty that 
you know a lot of things. Does Xorg mantainer know how internally KMS 
works? Has him read linux sources to know how KMS does his job?? Or is 
mostly one packager that pays a lot of attention in bugs and 
dependencies to allow other persons use this package???. Does package 
maintainer do source code auditories????

Do you think Eli has read all source code of every piece of software 
that falls in gentoo? ¿How can he get free time to trolling in this 
mailing list for example if so?



> You seem to be claiming that it's inappropriate to defer to people with 
> relevant knowledge and/or expertise, as though i said "Linux is written 
> entirely in Rust", and Linus himself said, "Um, no", and i said "Wow, ad 
> hominem much?"
> 

Linus revised and supervice almost all sources that falls in his hands, 
Eli surely no because it's impossible. Eli could control the pieces of 
software that falls in his hands, but surely he don't read every source 
code that falls in his hands, and specially pays attention in announced 
bugs, dependencys that the package owner says etc. And that does not 
mean that Eli has to now how every damned software piece works and how 
it does what it does.

>> And I have never told you that you like or not Xorg. Can you please
>> point me when I told you this???
> 

> i literally quoted you saying in an email addressed to me, "You don't 
> like Xorg"!
> 
You told that you were one wayland user and it's not truth you are one 
Xorg and wayland user. That's all, you were talking about that wayland 
give you whatever you need and it's not truth, since you were also using 
Xorg protocol, so you also need Xorg....


> Yeah, time for me to bow out, although i'm sure you'll have further 
> things to say in response to what i've written above.
> 
> But i want to say something to others reading this subthread:
> 
> Please keep in mind how much volunteer time is wasted by people "not in 
> possession of any of the facts" making claims that have to be corrected 
> by volunteers in order to minimise the amount of problems faced by 
> people working on the basis of those claims. And it becomes increasingly 
> frustrating to have do this again and again and again, particularly for 
> devs who are already doing so much.
> 
> 
> Alexis.
> 

It's worse one person that claims that it's a wayland user while is 
using Xorg protocol with one Xserver as Xwayland is at the same time. 
It's something like I'm vegan, but I eat fish 3 times per week.


> -- 
> 
> "The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I 
> exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
> "'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could 
> not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by 
> your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
> "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes 
> in a puff of logic.
> "'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that 
> black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing."
> — Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
> 

The only fact is that you claimed that wayland gave you everything you 
need.... while using Xorg protocol as well....

It's something like saying gnu/linux gives me everything but I use Adobe 
Photoshop under wine. It's called incoherency.

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3145 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Alexis]

Javier Martinez <tazok.id0@gmail.com> writes:

> If you want, link Xwayland to X to see your needed X 
> process. Please
> don't think that Xorg is a X called process, X usually is a link 
> to
> Xorg, X11 or whatever be. Also please.... try to understand how 
> ps
> works and what the comm is. The comm is just the name of the
> executable and Xorg is not an X named process, is one server 
> that
> talks the Xorg protocol, is Xnest a X windows server??? with 
> your
> arguments not, because it's not called X, BUT IT'S an Xserver.

Oh, i meant to address this.

/usr/bin/X is indeed a symlink to /usr/bin/Xorg, at least on my 
system:

  $ ls -l /usr/bin/X
  lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Jun 22 12:19 /usr/bin/X -> Xorg*

And that file is a binary:

  $ file /usr/bin/Xorg
  /usr/bin/Xorg: ELF 64-bit LSB pie executable, x86-64, version 1 
  (SYSV), dynamically linked, interpreter 
  /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, for GNU/Linux 3.2.0, stripped

However, the command line i provided in my post was:

  # ps ax | grep X

where the `grep` is GNU grep, and will match _any_ instance of the 
character 'X' in the process list, not just a process that's 
literally nothing more than 'X'. That's why it listed Xwayland and 
the grep process itself in the output:

  3576 tty1     Sl+    0:00 Xwayland :0 -rootless -core -terminate 
  -listenfd 26 -listenfd 27 -displayfd 67 -wm 64
  12043 pts/21   S+     0:00 grep --color=auto X

It would have also listed Xnest, had it been running.

That's how Basic Regular Expressions (BREs), as used by default by 
GNU grep, work. If one wanted to match a literal 'X' and nothing 
more, one would use the -F option to GNU grep, or fgrep, to 
indicate that one doesn't want the pattern to be interpreted as an 
RE, but as a fixed string.


Alexis.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Javier Martinez]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2708 bytes --]

El 18/9/25 a las 10:45, Alexis escribió:
> Javier Martinez <tazok.id0@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> If you want, link Xwayland to X to see your needed X process. Please
>> don't think that Xorg is a X called process, X usually is a link to
>> Xorg, X11 or whatever be. Also please.... try to understand how ps
>> works and what the comm is. The comm is just the name of the
>> executable and Xorg is not an X named process, is one server that
>> talks the Xorg protocol, is Xnest a X windows server??? with your
>> arguments not, because it's not called X, BUT IT'S an Xserver.
> 
> Oh, i meant to address this.
> 
> /usr/bin/X is indeed a symlink to /usr/bin/Xorg, at least on my system:
> 
>   $ ls -l /usr/bin/X
>   lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Jun 22 12:19 /usr/bin/X -> Xorg*
> 
> And that file is a binary:
> 
>   $ file /usr/bin/Xorg
>   /usr/bin/Xorg: ELF 64-bit LSB pie executable, x86-64, version 1 
>   (SYSV), dynamically linked, interpreter  /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, 
> for GNU/Linux 3.2.0, stripped
> 
> However, the command line i provided in my post was:
> 
>   # ps ax | grep X
> 
> where the `grep` is GNU grep, and will match _any_ instance of the 
> character 'X' in the process list, not just a process that's literally 
> nothing more than 'X'. That's why it listed Xwayland and the grep 
> process itself in the output:
> 
>   3576 tty1     Sl+    0:00 Xwayland :0 -rootless -core -terminate  - 
> listenfd 26 -listenfd 27 -displayfd 67 -wm 64
>   12043 pts/21   S+     0:00 grep --color=auto X
> 
> It would have also listed Xnest, had it been running.
> 
> That's how Basic Regular Expressions (BREs), as used by default by GNU 
> grep, work. If one wanted to match a literal 'X' and nothing more, one 
> would use the -F option to GNU grep, or fgrep, to indicate that one 
> doesn't want the pattern to be interpreted as an RE, but as a fixed string.
> 
> 
> Alexis.
> 
Did you understand that one Xserver is not a process called X neither 
Xorg neither whatever name you want to give it, but instead just a 
binary that listens to X clients talking XFree86 protocol?????

Xfree86 users don't have xorg binary, it's ridiculous to suppose that 
and X server is every process called X.

Xwayland talks this protocol because is a X server. You are using X 
protocol not only just the wayland one so it's rodiculous to claim that 
you are just a wayland user, you aren't. You are using both protocols, 
if you want to tell how pretty wayland is, don't use Xwayland and just 
use their own protocol.

Is something like to say that GNU/Linux gives you everything you need 
while you are using wine....



[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3145 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Eli Schwartz]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1906 bytes --]

On 9/18/25 12:32 AM, Javier Martinez wrote:
> El 18/9/25 a las 6:15, Alexis escribió:
>>
>> At this point, i must conclude that you're not discussing this in good
>> faith, since not only has Gentoo dev Eli also noted how your
>> understanding is incorrect, but you also seem to be implying that i'm
>> saying things i didn't say:
> 
> You did not give arguments at all.


If you agree that Alexis hasn't offered any arguments against what you
are saying, then WHY, pray tell, are you so vehemently angry about the
topic such that you must send hundreds of bitter, furious emails to
complain about the thing you yourself admit NO ONE HAS ARGUED AGAINST.


> Linus Torvalds is god, has him to be always correct by this reason??. Do
> you know what "ad hominem fallacy" is?


Do you know what a "non sequitur" is? You seem to be quite good at them.


With regard to Linus Torvalds and the ad hominem fallacy. It appears you
do not know what "ad hominem fallacy" is. For your elucidation, I'll
quote its definition:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
"""
attack your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to
undermine their argument
"""


This is not applicable here. If only you knew your list of logical
fallacies. I would have recommended the best logical fallacy for you to
accuse Alexis of would be that old classic, "appeal to authority fallacy":

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
"""
because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true
"""


It is certainly a structurally valid claim of the existence of a
fallacy. Although I'm afraid claiming a fallacy exists doesn't free you
of the requirement to argue facts with facts.

I didn't use authority as my argument: I offered facts about portage
etc. Alexis clearly felt it was no longer worth arguing with you at all.


-- 
Eli Schwartz

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 236 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Javier Martinez]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3020 bytes --]


There is one question that Alexis claimed:

Wayland gives him everything he needs.

There is just only needed argument to bring his claim down:

He is using one Xorg server, so is using Xfree protocol as well

After that he claimed that because of he has not one Xorg process my 
claim is false

I refuted it claiming that an Xserver has not to be a process called X
just a process that talks Xfree protocol.

Non sequitor?? Read above. I think is perfectly clear.

Ad hominem fallacy could be perfectly that if you have not studied 
computers science you cannot talk about programming, attacks my lack of 
studies. Authority phallacy is claiming that as you are one gentoo 
developer you always are right. Ad hominem attacks focus in me because I 
lack studies, authority fallacy puts focus in you because your condition 
  and not in me

I did not claim that YOU made any fallacy, was Alexis who did them. 
Please don't put words in me that I hadn't said.

El 18/9/25 a las 15:25, Eli Schwartz escribió:
> On 9/18/25 12:32 AM, Javier Martinez wrote:
>> El 18/9/25 a las 6:15, Alexis escribió:
>>>
>>> At this point, i must conclude that you're not discussing this in good
>>> faith, since not only has Gentoo dev Eli also noted how your
>>> understanding is incorrect, but you also seem to be implying that i'm
>>> saying things i didn't say:
>>
>> You did not give arguments at all.
> 
> 
> If you agree that Alexis hasn't offered any arguments against what you
> are saying, then WHY, pray tell, are you so vehemently angry about the
> topic such that you must send hundreds of bitter, furious emails to
> complain about the thing you yourself admit NO ONE HAS ARGUED AGAINST.
> 
> 
>> Linus Torvalds is god, has him to be always correct by this reason??. Do
>> you know what "ad hominem fallacy" is?
> 
> 
> Do you know what a "non sequitur" is? You seem to be quite good at them.
> 
> 
> With regard to Linus Torvalds and the ad hominem fallacy. It appears you
> do not know what "ad hominem fallacy" is. For your elucidation, I'll
> quote its definition:
> 
> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
> """
> attack your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to
> undermine their argument
> """
> 
> 
> This is not applicable here. If only you knew your list of logical
> fallacies. I would have recommended the best logical fallacy for you to
> accuse Alexis of would be that old classic, "appeal to authority fallacy":
> 
> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
> """
> because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true
> """
> 
> 
> It is certainly a structurally valid claim of the existence of a
> fallacy. Although I'm afraid claiming a fallacy exists doesn't free you
> of the requirement to argue facts with facts.
> 
> I didn't use authority as my argument: I offered facts about portage
> etc. Alexis clearly felt it was no longer worth arguing with you at all.
> 
> 


[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3145 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Eli Schwartz]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1801 bytes --]

On 9/18/25 4:45 AM, Alexis wrote:

> However, the command line i provided in my post was:
> 
>  # ps ax | grep X
> 
> where the `grep` is GNU grep, and will match _any_ instance of the
> character 'X' in the process list, not just a process that's literally
> nothing more than 'X'. That's why it listed Xwayland and the grep
> process itself in the output:
> 
>  3576 tty1     Sl+    0:00 Xwayland :0 -rootless -core -terminate  -
> listenfd 26 -listenfd 27 -displayfd 67 -wm 64
>  12043 pts/21   S+     0:00 grep --color=auto X
> 
> It would have also listed Xnest, had it been running.
> 
> That's how Basic Regular Expressions (BREs), as used by default by GNU
> grep, work. If one wanted to match a literal 'X' and nothing more, one
> would use the -F option to GNU grep, or fgrep, to indicate that one
> doesn't want the pattern to be interpreted as an RE, but as a fixed string.


Well, no.

$ ps ax | grep -F bas
[...]
 753347 pts/6    Ss+    0:00 /bin/bash
1269600 pts/7    Ss     0:01 /bin/bash
1770581 pts/4    Ss     0:09 /bin/bash
1992403 pts/8    Ss     0:01 /bin/bash
[...]


Fixed strings != "nothing more", ironically you tend to need regex for
word anchors like \b


$ ps ax | grep '\bbas\b'
$ ps ax | grep '\bbash\b'
[...]
1269600 pts/7    Ss     0:01 /bin/bash
1770581 pts/4    Ss     0:09 /bin/bash
1992403 pts/8    Ss     0:01 /bin/bash
2226387 pts/9    Ss+    0:25 /bin/bash
[...]


Personally I recommend

$ pgrep -af '\bbash\b'
1393 -bash
1788 /bin/bash
1962 -bash
559140 bash
753347 /bin/bash
1269600 /bin/bash
1770581 /bin/bash
1992403 /bin/bash
[...]


pgrep won't catch the pipe to grep :) it also has -f, whose lack allows
matching only inside the invoking exe name.


-- 
Eli Schwartz

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 236 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Javier Martinez]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2926 bytes --]



> 
> At this point, i must conclude that you're not discussing this in good faith, since not only has Gentoo dev Eli also noted how your understanding is incorrect, but you also seem to be implying that i'm saying things i didn't say:

Quoted you have Alexis fallacy, I never claimed that were you who do it.

It's also one ad hominem because I'm not a gentoo developer, put focus 
in me. So I must be wrong, not just the fact that you are one gentoo 
developer.

If you whereever got claim that please trust me, I'm a gentoo developer, 
this would be one authority fallacy since the focus is in you, not in me.

You have not studied astrophysics so please don't talk about. Ad hominem 
since you attack the other person studies condition

I have a master in astrophysics so please just say: You are right. 
Authority fallacy. Since you focus in your "superior" status.

El 18/9/25 a las 15:25, Eli Schwartz escribió:
> On 9/18/25 12:32 AM, Javier Martinez wrote:
>> El 18/9/25 a las 6:15, Alexis escribió:
>>>
>>> At this point, i must conclude that you're not discussing this in good
>>> faith, since not only has Gentoo dev Eli also noted how your
>>> understanding is incorrect, but you also seem to be implying that i'm
>>> saying things i didn't say:
>>
>> You did not give arguments at all.
> 
> 
> If you agree that Alexis hasn't offered any arguments against what you
> are saying, then WHY, pray tell, are you so vehemently angry about the
> topic such that you must send hundreds of bitter, furious emails to
> complain about the thing you yourself admit NO ONE HAS ARGUED AGAINST.
> 
> 
>> Linus Torvalds is god, has him to be always correct by this reason??. Do
>> you know what "ad hominem fallacy" is?
> 
> 
> Do you know what a "non sequitur" is? You seem to be quite good at them.
> 
> 
> With regard to Linus Torvalds and the ad hominem fallacy. It appears you
> do not know what "ad hominem fallacy" is. For your elucidation, I'll
> quote its definition:
> 
> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
> """
> attack your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to
> undermine their argument
> """
> 
> 
> This is not applicable here. If only you knew your list of logical
> fallacies. I would have recommended the best logical fallacy for you to
> accuse Alexis of would be that old classic, "appeal to authority fallacy":
> 
> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
> """
> because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true
> """
> 
> 
> It is certainly a structurally valid claim of the existence of a
> fallacy. Although I'm afraid claiming a fallacy exists doesn't free you
> of the requirement to argue facts with facts.
> 
> I didn't use authority as my argument: I offered facts about portage
> etc. Alexis clearly felt it was no longer worth arguing with you at all.
> 
> 


[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3145 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Javier Martinez]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3021 bytes --]


There is one question that Alexis claimed:

Wayland gives him everything he needs.

There is just only needed argument to bring his claim down:

He is using one Xorg server, so is using Xfree protocol as well

After that he claimed that because of he has not one Xorg process my 
claim is false

I refuted it claiming that an Xserver has not to be a process called X
just a process that talks Xfree protocol.

Non sequitor?? Read above. I think is perfectly clear.

Ad hominem fallacy could be perfectly that if you have not studied 
computers science you cannot talk about programming, attacks my lack of 
studies. Authority phallacy is claiming that as you are one gentoo 
developer you always are right. Ad hominem attacks focus in me because I 
lack studies, authority fallacy puts focus in you because your condition 
   and not in me

I did not claim that YOU made any fallacy, was Alexis who did them. 
Please don't put words in me that I hadn't said.

El 18/9/25 a las 15:25, Eli Schwartz escribió:
> On 9/18/25 12:32 AM, Javier Martinez wrote:
>> El 18/9/25 a las 6:15, Alexis escribió:
>>>
>>> At this point, i must conclude that you're not discussing this in good
>>> faith, since not only has Gentoo dev Eli also noted how your
>>> understanding is incorrect, but you also seem to be implying that i'm
>>> saying things i didn't say:
>>
>> You did not give arguments at all.
> 
> 
> If you agree that Alexis hasn't offered any arguments against what you
> are saying, then WHY, pray tell, are you so vehemently angry about the
> topic such that you must send hundreds of bitter, furious emails to
> complain about the thing you yourself admit NO ONE HAS ARGUED AGAINST.
> 
> 
>> Linus Torvalds is god, has him to be always correct by this reason??. Do
>> you know what "ad hominem fallacy" is?
> 
> 
> Do you know what a "non sequitur" is? You seem to be quite good at them.
> 
> 
> With regard to Linus Torvalds and the ad hominem fallacy. It appears you
> do not know what "ad hominem fallacy" is. For your elucidation, I'll
> quote its definition:
> 
> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
> """
> attack your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to
> undermine their argument
> """
> 
> 
> This is not applicable here. If only you knew your list of logical
> fallacies. I would have recommended the best logical fallacy for you to
> accuse Alexis of would be that old classic, "appeal to authority fallacy":
> 
> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
> """
> because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true
> """
> 
> 
> It is certainly a structurally valid claim of the existence of a
> fallacy. Although I'm afraid claiming a fallacy exists doesn't free you
> of the requirement to argue facts with facts.
> 
> I didn't use authority as my argument: I offered facts about portage
> etc. Alexis clearly felt it was no longer worth arguing with you at all.
> 
> 


[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3145 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wayland [was Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.]

[Alexis]

Eli Schwartz <eschwartz@gentoo.org> writes:

> Well, no.
> ...
> Fixed strings != "nothing more"

Hah! Indeed, you are correct - thanks for pointing this out.

> pgrep won't catch the pipe to grep :) it also has -f, whose lack 
> allows
> matching only inside the invoking exe name.

*nod*

Somewhat ironically, i think what might have contributed to my 
error re. grep's -F was that at the time i wrote that post, i was 
working on a script making use of pkill, and playing around with 
its -x option ....


Alexis.

Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[Dale]

Dale wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> I was doing my backups which includes config files.  I noticed one file
> was shall we say, large.  The better term might be HUGE.  This is the
> culprit. 
>
>
>
> root@Gentoo-1 / # ls /home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log
> -rw-r--r-- 1 dale users 13,905,915,860 Sep 14 03:33
> /home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log
> root@Gentoo-1 / #
>
>
> <<< SNIP >>>
>
> Thanks.
>  
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-) 
>


OK.  I finished my updates and logged out and back in.  In no time the
file was almost a gigbyte.  Or is that Gigabyte???  Anyway, this is a
few lines of what is in it. 


[mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64556 is invalid
(first=1 count=1 id=1)
[mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64555 is invalid
(first=1 count=1 id=1)
[mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64554 is invalid
(first=1 count=1 id=1)
[mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64553 is invalid
(first=1 count=1 id=1)
[mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64552 is invalid
(first=1 count=1 id=1)
[mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64551 is invalid
(first=1 count=1 id=1)
[mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64550 is invalid
(first=1 count=1 id=1)
[mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64549 is invalid
(first=1 count=1 id=1)
[mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64548 is invalid
(first=1 count=1 id=1)
[mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64547 is invalid
(first=1 count=1 id=1)
[mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64546 is invalid
(first=1 count=1 id=1)
[mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64545 is invalid
(first=1 count=1 id=1)
[mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64544 is invalid
(first=1 count=1 id=1)



I did a search but the matches the search returns are different.  I use
Smplayer and I have it set to use mpv.  It seems Mplayer isn't as good
as it used to be. 

Anyone seen that error before?  Is there something I can do to fix what
it is complaining about?  If it can't be fixed, should I just delete the
file and if needed delete the file and then lock it as someone else
suggested?  I'd rather fix what it is complaining about but it may be
that I can't do that.  Given the wide range of videos I watch, all of
them can't be broken tho. 

Open to ideas. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3436 bytes --]

On Sunday, 21 September 2025 13:42:36 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
> Dale wrote:
> > Howdy,
> > 
> > I was doing my backups which includes config files.  I noticed one file
> > was shall we say, large.  The better term might be HUGE.  This is the
> > culprit. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > root@Gentoo-1 / # ls /home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log
> > -rw-r--r-- 1 dale users 13,905,915,860 Sep 14 03:33
> > /home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log
> > root@Gentoo-1 / #
> > 
> > 
> > <<< SNIP >>>
> > 
> > Thanks.
> >  
> > Dale
> > 
> > :-)  :-) 
> 
> OK.  I finished my updates and logged out and back in.  In no time the
> file was almost a gigbyte.  Or is that Gigabyte???  Anyway, this is a
> few lines of what is in it. 
> 
> 
> [mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64556 is invalid
> (first=1 count=1 id=1)
> [mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64555 is invalid
> (first=1 count=1 id=1)
> [mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64554 is invalid
> (first=1 count=1 id=1)
> [mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64553 is invalid
> (first=1 count=1 id=1)
> [mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64552 is invalid
> (first=1 count=1 id=1)
> [mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64551 is invalid
> (first=1 count=1 id=1)
> [mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64550 is invalid
> (first=1 count=1 id=1)
> [mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64549 is invalid
> (first=1 count=1 id=1)
> [mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64548 is invalid
> (first=1 count=1 id=1)
> [mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64547 is invalid
> (first=1 count=1 id=1)
> [mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64546 is invalid
> (first=1 count=1 id=1)
> [mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64545 is invalid
> (first=1 count=1 id=1)
> [mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64544 is invalid
> (first=1 count=1 id=1)
> 
> 
> 
> I did a search but the matches the search returns are different.  I use
> Smplayer and I have it set to use mpv.  It seems Mplayer isn't as good
> as it used to be. 
> 
> Anyone seen that error before?  Is there something I can do to fix what
> it is complaining about?  If it can't be fixed, should I just delete the
> file and if needed delete the file and then lock it as someone else
> suggested?  I'd rather fix what it is complaining about but it may be
> that I can't do that.  Given the wide range of videos I watch, all of
> them can't be broken tho. 
> 
> Open to ideas. 
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-) 

I'll guess mpv is trying to play a stream and it finds some inconsistency in 
the data chunks of the stored stream.  I can think of two ways to ask it to 
shut up and not bother you.  Check the man page for mpv, it mentions:

--msg-level=<module1=level1,module2=level2,...>

where you can set the level as "no" to silence it completely, or specify the 
module which is causing all these STSC messages and just silence that alone.

The second potential entry is the path to store its log.  Perhaps if you set 
this to /dev/null it will not print anything out.

--log-file=<path>

Once you find something which works on a terminal, try modifying your 
~/.config/mpv/mpv.conf file options to achieve the same.

You may find this useful:

https://deepwiki.com/hooke007/mpv_doc-CN/2.1-configuration-options

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[Dale]

Michael wrote:
> On Sunday, 21 September 2025 13:42:36 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
>> Dale wrote:
>>> Howdy,
>>>
>>> I was doing my backups which includes config files.  I noticed one file
>>> was shall we say, large.  The better term might be HUGE.  This is the
>>> culprit. 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> root@Gentoo-1 / # ls /home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log
>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 dale users 13,905,915,860 Sep 14 03:33
>>> /home/dale/.local/share/sddm/xorg-session.log
>>> root@Gentoo-1 / #
>>>
>>>
>>> <<< SNIP >>>
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>  
>>> Dale
>>>
>>> :-)  :-) 
>> OK.  I finished my updates and logged out and back in.  In no time the
>> file was almost a gigbyte.  Or is that Gigabyte???  Anyway, this is a
>> few lines of what is in it. 
>>
>>
>> [mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64556 is invalid
>> (first=1 count=1 id=1)
>> [mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64555 is invalid
>> (first=1 count=1 id=1)
>> [mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64554 is invalid
>> (first=1 count=1 id=1)
>> [mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64553 is invalid
>> (first=1 count=1 id=1)
>> [mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64552 is invalid
>> (first=1 count=1 id=1)
>> [mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64551 is invalid
>> (first=1 count=1 id=1)
>> [mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64550 is invalid
>> (first=1 count=1 id=1)
>> [mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64549 is invalid
>> (first=1 count=1 id=1)
>> [mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64548 is invalid
>> (first=1 count=1 id=1)
>> [mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64547 is invalid
>> (first=1 count=1 id=1)
>> [mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64546 is invalid
>> (first=1 count=1 id=1)
>> [mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64545 is invalid
>> (first=1 count=1 id=1)
>> [mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x562f1ed43940] STSC entry 64544 is invalid
>> (first=1 count=1 id=1)
>>
>>
>>
>> I did a search but the matches the search returns are different.  I use
>> Smplayer and I have it set to use mpv.  It seems Mplayer isn't as good
>> as it used to be. 
>>
>> Anyone seen that error before?  Is there something I can do to fix what
>> it is complaining about?  If it can't be fixed, should I just delete the
>> file and if needed delete the file and then lock it as someone else
>> suggested?  I'd rather fix what it is complaining about but it may be
>> that I can't do that.  Given the wide range of videos I watch, all of
>> them can't be broken tho. 
>>
>> Open to ideas. 
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-) 
> I'll guess mpv is trying to play a stream and it finds some inconsistency in 
> the data chunks of the stored stream.  I can think of two ways to ask it to 
> shut up and not bother you.  Check the man page for mpv, it mentions:
>
> --msg-level=<module1=level1,module2=level2,...>
>
> where you can set the level as "no" to silence it completely, or specify the 
> module which is causing all these STSC messages and just silence that alone.
>
> The second potential entry is the path to store its log.  Perhaps if you set 
> this to /dev/null it will not print anything out.
>
> --log-file=<path>
>
> Once you find something which works on a terminal, try modifying your 
> ~/.config/mpv/mpv.conf file options to achieve the same.
>
> You may find this useful:
>
> https://deepwiki.com/hooke007/mpv_doc-CN/2.1-configuration-options

I'm going to try the /dev/null option.  If I can't fix what it is
complaining about, I'll just shut it up.  ROFL 

Works for me.  ;-) 

Thanks.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[Dale]

Dale wrote:
> Michael wrote:
>>
>> I'll guess mpv is trying to play a stream and it finds some inconsistency in 
>> the data chunks of the stored stream.  I can think of two ways to ask it to 
>> shut up and not bother you.  Check the man page for mpv, it mentions:
>>
>> --msg-level=<module1=level1,module2=level2,...>
>>
>> where you can set the level as "no" to silence it completely, or specify the 
>> module which is causing all these STSC messages and just silence that alone.
>>
>> The second potential entry is the path to store its log.  Perhaps if you set 
>> this to /dev/null it will not print anything out.
>>
>> --log-file=<path>
>>
>> Once you find something which works on a terminal, try modifying your 
>> ~/.config/mpv/mpv.conf file options to achieve the same.
>>
>> You may find this useful:
>>
>> https://deepwiki.com/hooke007/mpv_doc-CN/2.1-configuration-options
> I'm going to try the /dev/null option.  If I can't fix what it is
> complaining about, I'll just shut it up.  ROFL 
>
> Works for me.  ;-) 
>
> Thanks.
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-) 
>


I tried the /dev/null option for mpv and the file is back and already
north of 1Gbs.   Either it isn't mpv, seems to me it is, then what else
can I do to stop this file from getting so large?  I might add, I have
other options in the mpv file and they work.  So, I'm dealing with the
right file at least. 

Any other ideas?  I'm thinking I need to do something with sddm itself. 
It does seem to be the one writing to this file.  My google searches
turned up nothing like this.  Is this a Gentoo thing?  And maybe just
affecting me for some reason????

Thanks. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2408 bytes --]

On Monday, 29 September 2025 06:00:40 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
> Dale wrote:
> > Michael wrote:
> >> I'll guess mpv is trying to play a stream and it finds some inconsistency
> >> in the data chunks of the stored stream.  I can think of two ways to ask
> >> it to shut up and not bother you.  Check the man page for mpv, it
> >> mentions:
> >> 
> >> --msg-level=<module1=level1,module2=level2,...>
> >> 
> >> where you can set the level as "no" to silence it completely, or specify
> >> the module which is causing all these STSC messages and just silence
> >> that alone.
> >> 
> >> The second potential entry is the path to store its log.  Perhaps if you
> >> set this to /dev/null it will not print anything out.
> >> 
> >> --log-file=<path>
> >> 
> >> Once you find something which works on a terminal, try modifying your
> >> ~/.config/mpv/mpv.conf file options to achieve the same.
> >> 
> >> You may find this useful:
> >> 
> >> https://deepwiki.com/hooke007/mpv_doc-CN/2.1-configuration-options
> > 
> > I'm going to try the /dev/null option.  If I can't fix what it is
> > complaining about, I'll just shut it up.  ROFL 
> > 
> > Works for me.  ;-) 
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > Dale
> > 
> > :-)  :-) 
> 
> I tried the /dev/null option for mpv and the file is back and already
> north of 1Gbs.

Can you please show the content of your ~/.config/mpv/mpv.conf 


> Either it isn't mpv, seems to me it is, then what else
> can I do to stop this file from getting so large?  I might add, I have
> other options in the mpv file and they work.  So, I'm dealing with the
> right file at least. 
> 
> Any other ideas?  I'm thinking I need to do something with sddm itself. 
> It does seem to be the one writing to this file.  My google searches
> turned up nothing like this.  Is this a Gentoo thing?  And maybe just
> affecting me for some reason????
> 
> Thanks. 
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-) 

As I understand it, sddm captures what applications are reporting within the 
desktop session.  I'm thinking if you silence the application, it will stop 
printing logs.

Did you try to find out in the terminal which mpv module is responsible for 
these errors you see in the sddm log and silence that one specifically, or 
silence them all if you are not bothered to catch any problems reported by 
mpv?  For example when I silence messages from the vo/gpu and osd/libass my 
terminal output is *very* quiet.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[Dale]

Michael wrote:
> On Monday, 29 September 2025 06:00:40 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
>> Dale wrote:
>>> Michael wrote:
>>>> I'll guess mpv is trying to play a stream and it finds some inconsistency
>>>> in the data chunks of the stored stream.  I can think of two ways to ask
>>>> it to shut up and not bother you.  Check the man page for mpv, it
>>>> mentions:
>>>>
>>>> --msg-level=<module1=level1,module2=level2,...>
>>>>
>>>> where you can set the level as "no" to silence it completely, or specify
>>>> the module which is causing all these STSC messages and just silence
>>>> that alone.
>>>>
>>>> The second potential entry is the path to store its log.  Perhaps if you
>>>> set this to /dev/null it will not print anything out.
>>>>
>>>> --log-file=<path>
>>>>
>>>> Once you find something which works on a terminal, try modifying your
>>>> ~/.config/mpv/mpv.conf file options to achieve the same.
>>>>
>>>> You may find this useful:
>>>>
>>>> https://deepwiki.com/hooke007/mpv_doc-CN/2.1-configuration-options
>>> I'm going to try the /dev/null option.  If I can't fix what it is
>>> complaining about, I'll just shut it up.  ROFL 
>>>
>>> Works for me.  ;-) 
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Dale
>>>
>>> :-)  :-) 
>> I tried the /dev/null option for mpv and the file is back and already
>> north of 1Gbs.
> Can you please show the content of your ~/.config/mpv/mpv.conf 
>

I use the one in /etc.  I'm the only one on this thing anyway.  Here is
the contents of it. 


# Write your default config options here!

#ytdl-format=bestvideo[height<=?720]+bestaudio/best
ytdl-format=bestvideo[height<=?1080]+bestaudio/best

--osd-on-seek=no
--sub-create-cc-track=no
--alang=en,eng
title='${filename} - mpv'
--cache=yes
--cache-secs=480
--log-file=/dev/null



The one in /home is all commented out except for this one lonely line. 


--no-keepaspect-window


>> Either it isn't mpv, seems to me it is, then what else
>> can I do to stop this file from getting so large?  I might add, I have
>> other options in the mpv file and they work.  So, I'm dealing with the
>> right file at least. 
>>
>> Any other ideas?  I'm thinking I need to do something with sddm itself. 
>> It does seem to be the one writing to this file.  My google searches
>> turned up nothing like this.  Is this a Gentoo thing?  And maybe just
>> affecting me for some reason????
>>
>> Thanks. 
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-) 
> As I understand it, sddm captures what applications are reporting within the 
> desktop session.  I'm thinking if you silence the application, it will stop 
> printing logs.
>
> Did you try to find out in the terminal which mpv module is responsible for 
> these errors you see in the sddm log and silence that one specifically, or 
> silence them all if you are not bothered to catch any problems reported by 
> mpv?  For example when I silence messages from the vo/gpu and osd/libass my 
> terminal output is *very* quiet.


I looked at the man page again, like I've done in the past.  It is a lot
like reading Greek most of the time.  I did use Konqueror and the
man:mpv trick to pull up the whole thing, and then search for module.  I
found this little gem.  No idea if this works or not tho.  It's from the
man page but sometimes what it shows is only a guide, not what actually
works.


--msg-level=all=no


The file that showed back up was so large, I couldn't open it or
anything.  Honestly, I don't understand why any program will create a
file that is so large that it is useless.  At some point, either remove
some of it or just stop repeating the same things millions of times. 
Just saying.  Either way, to stop it, I deleted the file.  I can only
guess it was the same error as before. 

Oh, I've never played a video from the command line.  If this new method
doesn't work, I'll try that. 

I need to create the file again to see if that option works.  I'll post
back either way.  May help some other poor soul that runs into this. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

[gentoo-user] Re: sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[Nuno Silva]

On 2025-09-29, Michael wrote:

> As I understand it, sddm captures what applications are reporting within the 
> desktop session.  I'm thinking if you silence the application, it will stop 
> printing logs.

sddm likely isn't capturing anything. Before starting the graphical
session for the user, it probably just opened that file on file
descriptors 1 and 2.

-- 
Nuno Silva

Re: [gentoo-user] sddm xorg-session.log file is a little large.

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2647 bytes --]

On Monday, 29 September 2025 10:55:04 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
> Michael wrote:

> > Can you please show the content of your ~/.config/mpv/mpv.conf
> 
> I use the one in /etc.  I'm the only one on this thing anyway.  Here is
> the contents of it.

The config file in /etc/mpv/encoding-profiles.conf is for encodings.

You will need an mpv.conf file, which might as well be in your ~/.config/mpv/
mpv.conf

 
> # Write your default config options here!
> 
> #ytdl-format=bestvideo[height<=?720]+bestaudio/best
> ytdl-format=bestvideo[height<=?1080]+bestaudio/best
> 
> --osd-on-seek=no
> --sub-create-cc-track=no
> --alang=en,eng
> title='${filename} - mpv'
> --cache=yes
> --cache-secs=480
> --log-file=/dev/null

The above syntax is for running options on the terminal and is incorrect for a 
config file - see below.


> The one in /home is all commented out except for this one lonely line. 
> 
> 
> --no-keepaspect-window

This won't work either.


> > As I understand it, sddm captures what applications are reporting within
> > the desktop session.  I'm thinking if you silence the application, it
> > will stop printing logs.
> > 
> > Did you try to find out in the terminal which mpv module is responsible
> > for
> > these errors you see in the sddm log and silence that one specifically, or
> > silence them all if you are not bothered to catch any problems reported by
> > mpv?  For example when I silence messages from the vo/gpu and osd/libass
> > my
> > terminal output is *very* quiet.
> 
> I looked at the man page again, like I've done in the past.  It is a lot
> like reading Greek most of the time.

The mpv man page is H-U-G-E!  Unless you have a lot of time and patience it is 
best you search for terms you may be interested in.


> I did use Konqueror and the
> man:mpv trick to pull up the whole thing, and then search for module.  I
> found this little gem.  No idea if this works or not tho.  It's from the
> man page but sometimes what it shows is only a guide, not what actually
> works.
> 
> 
> --msg-level=all=no

This will work on the terminal.  To make it permanent remove the double dash 
at the front of any option and add it in your config file.

Search in Konqueror, or by prefixing search terms with "/" in a terminal after 
you run 'man mpv' for desired sections or terms.  Search for "CONFIGURATION" 
in order to find the section "CONFIGURATION FILES".  This section explains the 
correct syntax for mpv.conf.

Also, check /usr/share/doc/mpv-*/examples/mpv.conf.bz2 which has various 
examples of customising the behaviour of mpv.

Once you get the syntax right, things should fall into place.  :-)
 

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]