4 ms·

I think Wayland has come too close to the following pattern, which I've seen in other cases of free software which have become controversial: - decide it's tim

I think Wayland has come too close to the following pattern, which I've seen in other cases of free software which have become controversial: - decide it's time to make a New Thing which will supersede the Old Thing rather than living beside it - decide that some features of Old Thing will not be directly supported by New Thing; instead New Thing will be flexible enough that people could implement those features on top of it - declare that the work done to support those features will have to be done by the people who want to use them - declare that the time has come for New Thing to supersede Old Thing, before said work has been done [Edit: this wasn't intended to be a list of things that are individually bad ideas. It's only the last, in combination with the others, that I think is ill-advised.]

gspr 6y ago
> - decide it's time to make a New Thing which will supersede the Old Thing rather than living beside it That doesn't really describe the situation very well, seeing as XWayland works seamlessly. Wayland compositors very much support living beside X programs.
Out_of_Characte 6y ago
This is exactly the kind of post that the author was talking about. "decide it's time to make a New Thing which will supersede the Old Thing rather than living beside it" A non-substantial argument. Whats the difference between a wayland 'superceding' X and a wayland 'living besides' X? Does implementing Xwayland not constitute trying to 'live beside' it? your argument is vague and you can respond with more ambiguity. Install X and wayland. Nothing stops you. "decide that some features of Old Thing will not be directly supported by New Thing; instead New Thing will be flexible enough that people could implement those features on top of it" WHICH features? the 'old thing' can never equal the 'new thing' otherwise they would be the same. Wayland is purposefully LESS flexible (again, how is wayland more flexible? Or is that another vague statement?) in its input handling and screen handling which is why screen recorders needed to be reimplemented in the name of security. "declare that the work done to support those features will have to be done by the people who want to use them" How is this controversial? You seem to ascribe some kind of motivated reasoning for the statement that certain features aren't being maintained/developed by wayland developers. Dev says 'no' to a feature request, why is this controversial? EGLstreams is the closest thing to a controversy but nothing prevents anyone from forking and implementing support. Open source, no excuses. "declare that the time has come for New Thing to supersede Old Thing, before said work has been done" no such declaration has been made.

gspr 6y ago

> - decide it's time to make a New Thing which will supersede the Old Thing rather than living beside it That doesn't really describe the situation very well, seeing as XWayland works seamlessly. Wayland compositors very much support living beside X programs.

Out_of_Characte 6y ago

This is exactly the kind of post that the author was talking about. "decide it's time to make a New Thing which will supersede the Old Thing rather than living beside it" A non-substantial argument. Whats the difference between a wayland 'superceding' X and a wayland 'living besides' X? Does implementing Xwayland not constitute trying to 'live beside' it? your argument is vague and you can respond with more ambiguity. Install X and wayland. Nothing stops you. "decide that some features of Old Thing will not be directly supported by New Thing; instead New Thing will be flexible enough that people could implement those features on top of it" WHICH features? the 'old thing' can never equal the 'new thing' otherwise they would be the same. Wayland is purposefully LESS flexible (again, how is wayland more flexible? Or is that another vague statement?) in its input handling and screen handling which is why screen recorders needed to be reimplemented in the name of security. "declare that the work done to support those features will have to be done by the people who want to use them" How is this controversial? You seem to ascribe some kind of motivated reasoning for the statement that certain features aren't being maintained/developed by wayland developers. Dev says 'no' to a feature request, why is this controversial? EGLstreams is the closest thing to a controversy but nothing prevents anyone from forking and implementing support. Open source, no excuses. "declare that the time has come for New Thing to supersede Old Thing, before said work has been done" no such declaration has been made.