3 ms·

The comment you're responding to lists very concrete issues. Try accepting constructive criticism instead of accusing people of entitlement just because they da

The comment you're responding to lists very concrete issues. Try accepting constructive criticism instead of accusing people of entitlement just because they dare to disagree with you. Entitled developers who think their work is above criticism just because it's open source are just as annoying as entitled users who think they are owed something.

izacus 6y ago
They also seem to "dare" to disagree with major Linux distribution direction so perhaps it's not the responders opinion that's in the minority? I mean, this really sounds very similar to systemd and pulse audio type gnashing of teeth where the new solutions added plenty of widely required features while compromising on niche use cases which had other workarounds.
- The_rationalist 6y ago
  So non laggy screensharing is niche use case? Such statement does not make any sense to someone that live in the reality, especially since covid. Wayland bring the risk of having critical bugs on compositor Y and critical missfeatures/missoptimizations. Staying on X does not have any major user facing issue. Therefore choosing to use Wayland right now is an irrational action which pros does not offset the cons. Maybe that it'll make sense in the next 5 years, then I'd reconsider
  - izacus 6y ago
    I've never seen non-laggy screensharing with X either (especially since most modern apps draw directly and don't use X commands) so that's a really facetious argument to make. Even with NX and Xpra. State of the art has moved to image compression based screen sharing even on Linux and demanding that we stay on an obsolete stack which falls apart as soon as you connect a modern monitor to modern laptop due to some 1990s usecase is the crux of all these neckbeard complaints. Just like with Pulse, SystemD and bunch of others. Linux distros want to stay competitive in the now, not in 1990s. Which is why they're gaining market share.
    - ryandrake 6y ago
      > Linux distros want to stay competitive in the now, not in 1990s. Which is why they're gaining market share. This is where distro diversity is critical. Users have the choice to use a distro that is serious about maintaining backward compatibility or they can choose the ones chasing the new shiny. Everyone wins. Personally, I’m not swayed by the “but it’s modern!” arguments. I just want my existing software to continue working. I don’t care if my stack is obsolete, whatever that means. I just don’t want to worry about software breaking when I update to the never version. Other people are not like me and they can go use a distro with Wayland, and we are all happy.
- dfox 6y ago
  I see major difference in there: both systemd and pulseaudio do things differently but in fact do not break any existing usecases. For both these "modern" solutions all the super niche things that get broken are still possible. While Wayland outright does not provide solutions for things that are decidedly non-niche.
  - izacus 6y ago
    PulseAudio certanly broke a lot of existing use-cases. But it also brought some very clear advantages. Same with Wayland - it's a way to drag Linux desktop into a world where mixed DPI displays exist and where HW acceleration of desktop is a norm. That seems to be signifiantly more useful in 2020 where most displays need some kind of scaling.
phkahler 6y ago
>> Try accepting constructive criticism instead of accusing people of entitlement just because they dare to disagree with you. That's valid, and I did say I'm not sure if it's just me - meaning my (possibly wrong) interpretation. A list of specific things missing is fine, but the I'm-not-switching-until sounds different than a simple valid criticism or an inquiry as to weather those are being addressed. I probably should not have responded to a particular comment with my comment though. It wasn't too bad as those things go. Some of them really do come across the way I described.
CountSessine 6y ago
I think this is a very emotional issue because people are being told that an important tool will be taken away from them, but I also think that it's important to think about being reasonable. X, architecturally, is a dumpster fire. None of the ideas that were reified in it's design, types, or behaviour - not forcing rasters down unix pipes nor building widgets with X objects nor rendering networked fonts nor the general concept of immediate-mode widget rendering - are actually used today in modern X apps and have been mitigated-away with hacks and jury-rigs. But the design and the types and the protocol persists and no one wants to work on this nonsense in their free time. Unpaid programmers have voted with their commmits and Xorg has been orphaned. It's a dirty job and for the longest time only paid programmers have maintained X. And the last company to pay programmers to work on this stuff canvassed their customers and decided that the work didn't need to be done anymore. Everyone using X today has been free-riding on RHEL customers for years and Redhat has decided not to burden them with this anymore. And nobody else is volunteering to pay for this. I don't think entitled developers is the right term here. As an Xorg user, how much did you pay to use Xorg?

izacus 6y ago

They also seem to "dare" to disagree with major Linux distribution direction so perhaps it's not the responders opinion that's in the minority? I mean, this really sounds very similar to systemd and pulse audio type gnashing of teeth where the new solutions added plenty of widely required features while compromising on niche use cases which had other workarounds.

The_rationalist 6y ago
So non laggy screensharing is niche use case? Such statement does not make any sense to someone that live in the reality, especially since covid. Wayland bring the risk of having critical bugs on compositor Y and critical missfeatures/missoptimizations. Staying on X does not have any major user facing issue. Therefore choosing to use Wayland right now is an irrational action which pros does not offset the cons. Maybe that it'll make sense in the next 5 years, then I'd reconsider
- izacus 6y ago
  I've never seen non-laggy screensharing with X either (especially since most modern apps draw directly and don't use X commands) so that's a really facetious argument to make. Even with NX and Xpra. State of the art has moved to image compression based screen sharing even on Linux and demanding that we stay on an obsolete stack which falls apart as soon as you connect a modern monitor to modern laptop due to some 1990s usecase is the crux of all these neckbeard complaints. Just like with Pulse, SystemD and bunch of others. Linux distros want to stay competitive in the now, not in 1990s. Which is why they're gaining market share.
  - ryandrake 6y ago
    > Linux distros want to stay competitive in the now, not in 1990s. Which is why they're gaining market share. This is where distro diversity is critical. Users have the choice to use a distro that is serious about maintaining backward compatibility or they can choose the ones chasing the new shiny. Everyone wins. Personally, I’m not swayed by the “but it’s modern!” arguments. I just want my existing software to continue working. I don’t care if my stack is obsolete, whatever that means. I just don’t want to worry about software breaking when I update to the never version. Other people are not like me and they can go use a distro with Wayland, and we are all happy.
dfox 6y ago
I see major difference in there: both systemd and pulseaudio do things differently but in fact do not break any existing usecases. For both these "modern" solutions all the super niche things that get broken are still possible. While Wayland outright does not provide solutions for things that are decidedly non-niche.
- izacus 6y ago
  PulseAudio certanly broke a lot of existing use-cases. But it also brought some very clear advantages. Same with Wayland - it's a way to drag Linux desktop into a world where mixed DPI displays exist and where HW acceleration of desktop is a norm. That seems to be signifiantly more useful in 2020 where most displays need some kind of scaling.

phkahler 6y ago

>> Try accepting constructive criticism instead of accusing people of entitlement just because they dare to disagree with you. That's valid, and I did say I'm not sure if it's just me - meaning my (possibly wrong) interpretation. A list of specific things missing is fine, but the I'm-not-switching-until sounds different than a simple valid criticism or an inquiry as to weather those are being addressed. I probably should not have responded to a particular comment with my comment though. It wasn't too bad as those things go. Some of them really do come across the way I described.

CountSessine 6y ago

I think this is a very emotional issue because people are being told that an important tool will be taken away from them, but I also think that it's important to think about being reasonable. X, architecturally, is a dumpster fire. None of the ideas that were reified in it's design, types, or behaviour - not forcing rasters down unix pipes nor building widgets with X objects nor rendering networked fonts nor the general concept of immediate-mode widget rendering - are actually used today in modern X apps and have been mitigated-away with hacks and jury-rigs. But the design and the types and the protocol persists and no one wants to work on this nonsense in their free time. Unpaid programmers have voted with their commmits and Xorg has been orphaned. It's a dirty job and for the longest time only paid programmers have maintained X. And the last company to pay programmers to work on this stuff canvassed their customers and decided that the work didn't need to be done anymore. Everyone using X today has been free-riding on RHEL customers for years and Redhat has decided not to burden them with this anymore. And nobody else is volunteering to pay for this. I don't think entitled developers is the right term here. As an Xorg user, how much did you pay to use Xorg?