3 ms·
> No actual simplicity, just some neckbeards complaining about software evolving... Care to rephrase that without the insulting terminology?
by johnr2 7y ago
> No actual simplicity, just some neckbeards complaining about software evolving...
Care to rephrase that without the insulting terminology?
- Athas 7y agoNothing is particularly simple about X11, especially in its modern incarnations. It's much simpler to have an API that maps cleanly to what the hardware is actually doing, which is what Wayland is. You can still prefer X11 for its features, like network transparency, but it is more complex than Wayland.
- oblio 7y agoX is not simple.
- majewsky 7y agoWayland is just a vastly simpler architecture compared to Xorg, enabling lower redraw latency and tighter control of the display hardware on modern hardware (as in: systems where the GPU rather than the CPU computes the actual colors of pixels). Those concerns are more important for graphical desktop environments, not so much for terminal multiplexers [1]. Therefore most existing Wayland compositors are focused on conventional desktop users. People with a "I just need a bunch of terminal windows" mindset will look at these and complain about bloat, but it's not really bloat to be able to play games without screen tearing (an issue that I always had with Xorg and that's just gone with Wayland). And it's not bloat to be able to play audio in Firefox either (Firefox afair only supports PulseAudio). [1] Referencing the old 90s joke that Xorg is just a graphical terminal multiplexer, since the average Unix user mostly just uses it to have multiple terminal emulator windows open at the same time.