Hello, Wol. On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 23:08:42 +0100, Wol wrote: > On 06/08/2024 19:31, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > So, is it possible in Wayland to record a configuration of windows, > > their sizes and positions, then restore these on starting a program > > again? If not, that would appear to be a design bug in Wayland. What > > am I missing?
> That - unlike X - is because windows cannot say where they are going to > go. They can *ask* where they want to go, which isn't the same thing. How does it differ in practice? Under what circumstances would a request to display a window at a particular place result in it being displayed somewhere else? > Iirc, X behaves like Windows, which means applications can *seize* > focus, which drives me up the wall on occasion at work. I'll have an > Excel macro running, which takes maybe 3 or 4 minutes. So I go into > let's say Slack. Excel triggers something (google drive?) which grabs > focus and disappears, so all of a sudden I *think* I'm gaily typing into > Slack. But focus has been stolen and I'm typing into a vacuum - > EXTREMELY frustrating, especially as I don't actually know what's going on. I don't understand what these issues with focus have to do with positioning a window. Though I can appreciate them causing problems. There would appear to be a clash between Wayland running within a GNU/Linux running as a Windows subsystem, and the Windows itself - presumably Windows allows a Windows application to steal focus from a Wayland application in this situation. > In Wayland, you can't steal focus. But as a side effect, it's Wayland > that controls the window, not the application. So Wayland is more > secure, but that comes with unavoidable side effects that you don't like... How does Wayland controling the Window lead to an application program's inability to position it? I can't see the connection. Just as a bit of context; I've not yet tried Wayland, and for most of my work (including Emacs) use a Linux console. > Cheers, > Wol -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
