Hi all. A bit of an odd problem here.
I've a perl program that opens an X window using Tk. I specify the
geometry 1400x700+0+0.
Running under Mint, it works fine, and opens exactly as expected in the
top left screen corner.
On the Pi (pi4, 11/bullseye), it opens a window with the correct size
but a very odd position:
xwininfo: Window id: 0x1a00013 "Display"
Absolute upper-left X: 1782
Absolute upper-left Y: 30
Relative upper-left X: 2
Relative upper-left Y: 30
Width: 1400
Height: 700
Depth: 24
Visual: 0x21
Visual Class: TrueColor
Border width: 0
Class: InputOutput
Colormap: 0x20 (not installed)
Bit Gravity State: NorthWestGravity
Window Gravity State: NorthWestGravity
Backing Store State: NotUseful
Save Under State: no
Map State: IsViewable
Override Redirect State: no
Corners: +1782+30 --1262+30 --1262-350 +1782-350
-geometry 1400x700+1780+0
which is well off to the right, with the title bar concealed underneath
the top task bar.
Any thoughts please as to what might be going on?
(I know bulldog isn't the latest but I don't have any pressing need to upgrade. This machine is dedicated to running this one program.
I also see xrandr returns unexpected output about not being able to
fetch the gamma value for the screen, which it calls "default". But
maybe that's a red herring.)
(I know bulldog isn't the latest but I don't have any pressing need to upgrade. This machine is dedicated to running this one program.
On Wed, 8 Jul 2026 12:03:51 +0100, Mike Scott wrote:
(I know bulldog isn't the latest but I don't have any pressing need to
upgrade. This machine is dedicated to running this one program.
What is XDG_SESSION_TYPE? Mint is X11. I'm running the latest Trixie derivative on the Pi and it is Wayland. I'm wondering if an older XWayland isn't doing the job.
Under some circumstances, the window manager can override the
size or position parameters. Under some other circumstances, the
application can ignore those parameters.
On the Pi (pi4, 11/bullseye), it opens a window with the correct
size but a very odd position:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2026 12:03:51 +0100, Mike Scott wrote:
On the Pi (pi4, 11/bullseye), it opens a window with the correct
size but a very odd position:
On Wayland, the application is not in control of where its windows
appear.
Then, what of the time-honored -geometry or --geometry option a user can
add to a command line in a script or alias to create a window at a user-specified location? I have scripts that open multiple windows,
each at a location specified by that option.
On 2026-07-08, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2026 12:03:51 +0100, Mike Scott wrote:
On the Pi (pi4, 11/bullseye), it opens a window with the correct
size but a very odd position:
On Wayland, the application is not in control of where its windows
appear.
Then, what of the time-honored -geometry or --geometry option a
user can add to a command line in a script or alias to create a
window at a user-specified location? I have scripts that open
multiple windows, each at a location specified by that option.
Absolute positioning of
windows was something the Wayland developers objected to.
On 09/07/2026 05:34, rbowman wrote:
Absolute positioning of
windows was something the Wayland developers objected to.
That seems short-sighted.
I really do *NOT* like the fact that on this (stock RaspiOS) Pi the wm chooses to open each and every application right in the centre of the
screen and I have to move them all around to acceptable places.
On 09/07/2026 05:34, rbowman wrote:
Absolute positioning of windows was something the Wayland developers
objected to.
That seems short-sighted.
In my former life as a Windows (cough!) developer we took some trouble
to open our main application window at the same position on the screen
as it had been when the application was last closed (and stored screen size/position values for different screen sizes/resolutions for the
benefit of those who copied the application between their laptop and
desktop PCs). It was a popular feature.
I really do *NOT* like the fact that on this (stock RaspiOS) Pi the
wm chooses to open each and every application right in the centre of
the screen and I have to move them all around to acceptable places.
The whole Wayland project seems to be the blind leading the
short-sighted.
On Thu, 9 Jul 2026 18:31:18 +0100, druck wrote:
The whole Wayland project seems to be the blind leading the
short-sighted.
Feel free to sponsor the development of alternatives that are more
simpatico with your particular weltanschauung.
Free Software is all about having a choice.
One thing is for sure: giving control to the apps themselves is never
going to be the optimal solution.
On 09/07/2026 23:58, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
One thing is for sure: giving control to the apps themselves is never
going to be the optimal solution.
It's not clear to me that there is any one solution that is optimal in
all cases.
It's certainly nice to allow the apps to be able to request a
particular size/position, but of course the wm should be able to
ignore the request if that location makes no sense. No, the app
shouldn't have *control*, just be able to express a preference.
I would argue that for the most part, the window position preferences
(or outright control) should come from the user, not the application at
all. That does point to a system-level component (window manager, compositor, whatever) managing positions, following user configuration, rather than the application.
Richard Kettlewell wrote:
I would argue that for the most part, the window position preferences
(or outright control) should come from the user, not the application at
all. That does point to a system-level component (window manager,
compositor, whatever) managing positions, following user configuration,
rather than the application.
I rather depends on the use, i suspect. That warning window really may
need to position itself screen dead centre on top of everything else
to make the realise there's a problem with the automatic reactor
emergency shutdown :-{
It's certainly nice to allow the apps to be able to request a
particular size/position, but of course the wm should be able to
ignore the request if that location makes no sense. No, the app
shouldn't have *control*, just be able to express a preference.
On 11/07/2026 14:05, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
I would argue that for the most part, the window position preferences
(or outright control) should come from the user, not the application at
all. That does point to a system-level component (window manager,
compositor, whatever) managing positions, following user configuration,
rather than the application.
I rather depends on the use, i suspect. That warning window really may
need to position itself screen dead centre on top of everything else to
make the realise there's a problem with the automatic reactor emergency shutdown :-{
Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> writes:
On 09/07/2026 23:58, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
One thing is for sure: giving control to the apps themselves is never
going to be the optimal solution.
It's not clear to me that there is any one solution that is optimal in
all cases.
It's certainly nice to allow the apps to be able to request a
particular size/position, but of course the wm should be able to
ignore the request if that location makes no sense. No, the app
shouldn't have *control*, just be able to express a preference.
I would argue that for the most part, the window position preferences
(or outright control) should come from the user, not the application at
all. That does point to a system-level component (window manager, compositor, whatever) managing positions, following user configuration, rather than the application.
There is some nuance here when an application either opens more than one window, or opens a window that is in some way logically connected to
another application. Depending on what’s going on it might be
preferrable for the new window to be overlapping the existing window
(e.g. menus, tooltips, confirmation dialogs, etc), or it might be
preferrable for it to not overlapping the existing window if possible
(e.g. a pop-out media player).
Wayland already covers much of this but there does seem to be a gap for
a niche set of use cases. It always seems to be the same application mentioned each time this comes up, so it’s unclear if the niche is
bigger than 1.
Okay, here's one niche use case:
- I want to run a shell script that opens four xterms (or
similar), and on the command line that starts each instance
the script specifies colors and screen size/position.
Here's another:
- I want to monitor a group of maybe a dozen machines involved
in a performance benchmark, so I have a script that opens a
small monitoring application (maybe xload or "vmstat 3" or
similar) on various machines. I would use the equivalent of
"ssh -X ..." to launch them, since IIUC Wayland doesn't do
network transparency (defined as a client application
throwing its display to display server).
On 2026-07-11, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> writes:
On 09/07/2026 23:58, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
One thing is for sure: giving control to the apps themselves is never
going to be the optimal solution.
It's not clear to me that there is any one solution that is optimal in
all cases.
It's certainly nice to allow the apps to be able to request a
particular size/position, but of course the wm should be able to
ignore the request if that location makes no sense. No, the app
shouldn't have *control*, just be able to express a preference.
I would argue that for the most part, the window position preferences
(or outright control) should come from the user, not the application at
all. That does point to a system-level component (window manager,
compositor, whatever) managing positions, following user configuration,
rather than the application.
There is some nuance here when an application either opens more than one
window, or opens a window that is in some way logically connected to
another application. Depending on what’s going on it might be
preferrable for the new window to be overlapping the existing window
(e.g. menus, tooltips, confirmation dialogs, etc), or it might be
preferrable for it to not overlapping the existing window if possible
(e.g. a pop-out media player).
Wayland already covers much of this but there does seem to be a gap for
a niche set of use cases. It always seems to be the same application
mentioned each time this comes up, so it’s unclear if the niche is
bigger than 1.
Okay, here's one niche use case:
- I want to run a shell script that opens four xterms (or
similar), and on the command line that starts each instance
the script specifies colors and screen size/position.
- On another day of the week, I have a different shell script
that opens nine xterms (or similar). Again, each command
line in the script specifies colors and screen
size/positions.
Here's another:
- I want to monitor a group of maybe a dozen machines involved
in a performance benchmark, so I have a script that opens a
small monitoring application (maybe xload or "vmstat 3" or
similar) on various machines. I would use the equivalent of
"ssh -X ..." to launch them, since IIUC Wayland doesn't do
network transparency (defined as a client application
throwing its display to display server).
Oh, another:
- I want to open several web browser windows in specific screen
sizes and positions to run a web app.
Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> writes:
On 2026-07-11, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> writes:
On 09/07/2026 23:58, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
One thing is for sure: giving control to the apps themselves is never >>>>> going to be the optimal solution.
It's not clear to me that there is any one solution that is optimal in >>>> all cases.
It's certainly nice to allow the apps to be able to request a
particular size/position, but of course the wm should be able to
ignore the request if that location makes no sense. No, the app
shouldn't have *control*, just be able to express a preference.
I would argue that for the most part, the window position preferences
(or outright control) should come from the user, not the application at
all. That does point to a system-level component (window manager,
compositor, whatever) managing positions, following user configuration,
rather than the application.
There is some nuance here when an application either opens more than one >>> window, or opens a window that is in some way logically connected to
another application. Depending on what’s going on it might be
preferrable for the new window to be overlapping the existing window
(e.g. menus, tooltips, confirmation dialogs, etc), or it might be
preferrable for it to not overlapping the existing window if possible
(e.g. a pop-out media player).
Wayland already covers much of this but there does seem to be a gap for
a niche set of use cases. It always seems to be the same application
mentioned each time this comes up, so it’s unclear if the niche is
bigger than 1.
Okay, here's one niche use case:
- I want to run a shell script that opens four xterms (or
similar), and on the command line that starts each instance
the script specifies colors and screen size/position.
- On another day of the week, I have a different shell script
that opens nine xterms (or similar). Again, each command
line in the script specifies colors and screen
size/positions.
Here's another:
- I want to monitor a group of maybe a dozen machines involved
in a performance benchmark, so I have a script that opens a
small monitoring application (maybe xload or "vmstat 3" or
similar) on various machines. I would use the equivalent of
"ssh -X ..." to launch them, since IIUC Wayland doesn't do
network transparency (defined as a client application
throwing its display to display server).
Oh, another:
- I want to open several web browser windows in specific screen
sizes and positions to run a web app.
i.e. you want user control of window positions, which is what I’m
arguing for:
| I would argue that for the most part, the window position preferences
| (or outright control) should come from the user, not the application
| at all.
This is not inconsistent with the user control being expressed via a
window manager rather than through the application, so I have no idea
what point you’re trying to make here.
On 12 Jul 2026 03:55:03 GMT, Robert Riches wrote:
Okay, here's one niche use case:
- I want to run a shell script that opens four xterms (or
similar), and on the command line that starts each instance
the script specifies colors and screen size/position.
If you want total control over how things are laid out, put them all
in the same window. In this case, open the terminal sessions as panels
in a single window.
(Note that, in both X11 and Wayland, “window” is not synonymous with “contiguous rectangular region of opaque pixels”.)
Here's another:
- I want to monitor a group of maybe a dozen machines involved
in a performance benchmark, so I have a script that opens a
small monitoring application (maybe xload or "vmstat 3" or
similar) on various machines. I would use the equivalent of
"ssh -X ..." to launch them, since IIUC Wayland doesn't do
network transparency (defined as a client application
throwing its display to display server).
<https://packages.debian.org/trixie/waypipe>
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,135 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 150:14:29 |
| Calls: | 14,543 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 186,451 |
| D/L today: |
1,941 files (814M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,568,799 |