4 ms·
> Oh yes, because obviously everyone wants to maintain 10 different code paths Can you really blame X developers for not wanting to maintain something painful?
by espadrine 10y ago
> Oh yes, because obviously everyone wants to maintain 10 different code paths
Can you really blame X developers for not wanting to maintain something painful?
It's fair for them to focus on things that will please the majority of users. Not everyone are happy with using 40-year-old technology for their daily needs. But this is open-source; contribute if you like it.
> We need standardization. Ideally we have a single solution
X has its own barely readable standard, and Wayland is a separate standard protocol which is unavoidably incompatible. The core X protocol makes assumptions that are no longer valid, and its maintainers have tried patching around it for dozens of years without breaking the standard, but many issues were simply unsolvable.
- mixedCase 10y agoI think you misunderstood me. The people I had in mind were those maintaining code that writes its own windows (toolkits, libraries like SDL2, plenty of games rolling their own and applications like Steam). And I mentioned it plenty of times: But I like the idea behind Wayland, and think it's a great thing that the display system is finally getting rearchitected and rewritten. My problem isn't "I no longer have X", my problem was the attitude of "Wayland doesn't have to care about non-average users when replacing X" which I was previously responding to.
- espadrine 10y agoWouldn't supporting simultaneously the X protocol and the Wayland protocol be very hard, if not impossible? It's already hard enough to replace the "basics" of X.
- mixedCase 10y agoNot impossible, just ugly as hell. The first two examples I mentioned (toolkits like Qt or Gtk and the SDL2 libraries) actually do it.