4 ms·
>not constantly changing equals it's end-of-life No, it just means that its stable. I understand that it's probably habit to justify constant changes to your s
by dilandau 6y ago
>not constantly changing equals it's end-of-life
No, it just means that its stable. I understand that it's probably habit to justify constant changes to your software projects, but in my experience, it's a good thing to be conservative, and a very good thing to maintain compatibility over a very long span of time.
EDIT: I swear, what is it with people opportunistically virtue-signalling on HN comments? Masks? Really?
- bitwize 6y agoAckshually, what happened was the X11 maintainers jumped ship to Wayland. Once again, just about everyone who knows thing one about graphics on Linux is on board with the Wayland transition. Just like everyone who knows thing one about virology or epidemiology is on board with social distancing and wearing a mask.
- badsectoracula 6y ago> X11 maintainers jumped ship to Wayland. Some maintainers, last time i checked others like Keith Packard are working exclusively on Xorg. > Once again, just about everyone who knows thing one about graphics on Linux is on board with the Wayland transition. I know "thing one" about graphics on Linux and i'm certainly not on board with Wayland transition. > Just like everyone who knows thing one about virology or epidemiology is on board with social distancing and wearing a mask. That is not a good comparison.
- klodolph 6y agoCompatibility comes at a cost—by supporting old users, sometimes you fail to support new users. This is not hypothetical, this is at the core of the problem with BDF fonts.
- badsectoracula 6y agoHow does supporting BDF fonts makes a project fail to support new users? It sounds like a problem with the library's architecture, not an unsolvable technical hurdle.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y agoNothing prevents an X-server from running within Wayland. BDF will live forever for those who need it.