4 ms·

Well, I still don't get it... How I'm using my system now works perfectly, finally, and I'm sure I probably fit into the 'modern usage' bracket (hidpi, multiple

Well, I still don't get it... How I'm using my system now works perfectly, finally, and I'm sure I probably fit into the 'modern usage' bracket (hidpi, multiple monitors, USB-c projectors etc)... That security improvement would be good, surely we can add this to X though? Adding that bit of security isn't enough to sell me on replacing such an entrenched bit of our daily lives -- for me at least.. We are stable and it's pretty and fast enough. Progress is always good, but it has to bring something to the table other than a transparent replacement of what we already have with new code. How many million hours has X run this month? I sound so uncool to myself here, I really like shiny new tech but fucking with something so important for reasons that no one really seems to agree on seems like a bad move to me. Maybe someone else has some justification for is that we're missing and can enlighten us?

Latty 10y ago
Sure, but there is cost to maintaining X. If Wayland is smaller and can achieve the same thing more effectively (more secure, faster, better features for contained applications, etc...), then that is preferable. Yes, there is a cost to you, as a user, in switching. The benefits of Wayland don't really filter to you as a user in a perceivable way, but if it means that the applications you use are developed more quickly and end up being more efficient and secure, that's a benefit. The reality is that Wayland will be something you use, eventually, because people will support it (because it's better for them to target than X), and so eventually you will need it for something you want to use. That's why I call it a trade off. Right now, would I develop an application only on Wayland? Probably not. In the future, that'll shift and eventually tip - at some point the cost of developing on X will simply be that much higher it won't be worth it. I understand users being risk-adverse and not wanting to change, but the argument of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" has historically always lost in the end. It's rare for a system to have no room for improvement, and X is definitely not such a system. As to, why not do it in X - because X does want to be backwards compatible and stable for it's users. Secuity that breaks fundamental capabilities applications expect can't maintain that. Ripping out the cruft breaks existing stuff. Wayland aims to replace or remove 99% of X, so why work from a basis you are going to use essentially none of?

Latty 10y ago

Sure, but there is cost to maintaining X. If Wayland is smaller and can achieve the same thing more effectively (more secure, faster, better features for contained applications, etc...), then that is preferable. Yes, there is a cost to you, as a user, in switching. The benefits of Wayland don't really filter to you as a user in a perceivable way, but if it means that the applications you use are developed more quickly and end up being more efficient and secure, that's a benefit. The reality is that Wayland will be something you use, eventually, because people will support it (because it's better for them to target than X), and so eventually you will need it for something you want to use. That's why I call it a trade off. Right now, would I develop an application only on Wayland? Probably not. In the future, that'll shift and eventually tip - at some point the cost of developing on X will simply be that much higher it won't be worth it. I understand users being risk-adverse and not wanting to change, but the argument of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" has historically always lost in the end. It's rare for a system to have no room for improvement, and X is definitely not such a system. As to, why not do it in X - because X does want to be backwards compatible and stable for it's users. Secuity that breaks fundamental capabilities applications expect can't maintain that. Ripping out the cruft breaks existing stuff. Wayland aims to replace or remove 99% of X, so why work from a basis you are going to use essentially none of?