Do you think it would fundamentally be a mistake to thread data along with error type through the error return path, or is it just that it costs too much say from a calling convention perspective or some other technical reason? Is it related to ownership?
My feeling is that I consistently find on-point solutions for my Linux problems with a quick search. However if my Windows install gets in trouble my search will yield some DISM.exe invocation which doesn't help at all. A bit anecdotal, but this is my experience. I've always been able to fix my Linux installs.
Let’s not underestimate the scale of the search which led to us though, even though you may be right in principle. In addition to deep time on earth, we may well be just part of a tiny fraction of a universe-wide and mostly fruitless search.
XWayland is compartmentalized, and should not make life harder for anyone else in the Wayland world (except the ones spending time maintaining it). And Zink gives us a clean OpenGL implementation on top of Vulkan (so not contributing to complexity in the base stack). I'm fine with a long tail of software requiring XWayland+Zink, and I don't think of them as polluting my system.
Last time I had a quick look, zink did seem far from being finished, I mean very far away.
The main issues for xwayland+zink are the middle ground applications: those which are x11/vulkan3D without wayland support, if I am not mistaken, like shadow of the tombraider, metro exodus games, etc (even though I would not play anymore those games).
ohohoh... I am going to ask if valheim has a working/tested wayland backend while I am thinking about it.
You probably haven't looked at it for a while. It's a conformant OpenGL implementation. Zink is now the default for Nvidia GPUs in Mesa, replacing Nouveau.
Since it's trained on a vast a mount of code (probably all publicly accessible Go code and more), it's seen a vast amount of different bespoke APIs for doing all kinds of things. I'm sure some of that will leak into the output from time to time. And to some extent can generalize, so it may just invent APIs.
If it was first, it could have self-improved more, to the point that it has the capacity to prevent competition, while the competition does not have the capacity to defend itself against superior AGI. This all is so hypothetical and frankly far from what we're seeing in the market now. Funny how we're all discussing dystopian scifi scenarios now.
That's the theory. However, isn't likely that as things like the new Nova Nvidia driver is written in Rust, the things that depend on Rust are suddenly so important, that shipping with it disabled is unrealistic, even without a policy change. (I don't think this is bad)
Rust for Linux is currently experiment. If a larger number of widely-used drivers get written in Rust and developers prefer writing them in Rust over C, then I guess it's time to declare the experiment a success and flip the switch?
