>Wayland solves real, systemic issues in windowing, most notably around security, that need to be solved. It also allows outsourcing of many of X's most unwield

>Wayland solves real, systemic issues in windowing, most notably around security, that need to be solved. It also allows outsourcing of many of X's most unwieldy features to the clients (IPC, rendering, and networking). In many ways, Wayland is closer to the Unix philosophy of one program/one task than X while also being safer to use. That's exactly my sentiment and I brought it up in the comment. The problem is designing these protocols without regard for how the thing you're replacing is being used. That's only going to result on a pile of hacks. It's just baffling how short-sighted some of the Wayland devs are when the project was born precisely because of these hacks accumulating in X. > And, it's not like you need to drop X, just like you don't need to drop init. The beauty is that you can continue to use and maintain whichever you feel are the best tools. Oh yes, because obviously everyone wants to maintain 10 different code paths so it's not like Red Hat is pushing their software with their influence over the ecosystem oh no no. But enjoy maintaining those shims, we sure as hell don't care about standards! Gotta move fast, break things and compatibility is for losers. >I feel like the same things were said about systemd a few years ago and here we are, every major distribution uses it out of the box. And it's just been dandy isn't it? We still don't have stable interfaces between its parts (yet they still have the gall to say that systemd isn't monolithic), good effin luck debugging it when it shits the bed... list is long, but pick your poison: http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Arguments_against_systemd http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Arguments_against_... Negative points will be awarded on "works for me". > And every windowing system and graphical toolkit supports Wayland, long before Wayland was a default. Though I'm not an expert in graphical compositing and rendering, I can't imagine this is by accident. Numerous projects must feel the technical advantages of Wayland outweigh the disadvantages of change. The premise is great, what's not to love about it. The problem is execution. Because of Wayland's model, a lot of applications relying on X's nature are left out in the dirt. Standards are the way to solve this, and some work is being done about this, but the comment I replied on by coldtea simply shat on all this with a message akin to "Don't stop the momentum, you're a minority FUCK YOU we don't care about you get on board or get ran over". This is what I was criticizing. We need standardization. Ideally we have a single solution that improves on the status quo and we call it a day; but where there's disagreement let's find our middle ground and standardize it. If you don't need 4 mice and 4 keyboards working simultaneously great! But what you find useless and nonsensical can be the greatest fun ever in a 4-player co-op session of Serious Sam 3 for groups of friends around the world; or just as well prove to be one of the most productive formats for groups of people working together in a local application.