4 ms·

Because then you end up with something like X11, which we already have. The codebase could be re-engineered, sure, but a lot of people championing Wayland tend

by R0b0t1 6y ago

Because then you end up with something like X11, which we already have. The codebase could be re-engineered, sure, but a lot of people championing Wayland tend to see this duplication of effort as good for some reason, and at least last I engaged with them did not like the idea of a "new X11." Personally I think something like that is an inevitability.

rbanffy 6y ago
> which we already have. It'd still solve a lot of issues that X can't.
Spivak 6y ago
Because the Xorg mono-culture was bad. There was no ability to write other X11 display servers from the spec alone. You either did what Xorg did bug for bug or apps broke. By having many different implementations all speaking a common protocol you make it harder to calcify the behaviors of any one implementation and ensure that the spec is what apps code against. People seem to like that we have many browser implementations but when it comes to display servers it seems like they want Chrome to rule them all.
- R0b0t1 6y ago
  That's fine, I know. But acting like Wayland is feature complete when it obviously isn't is pretty ridiculous. Instead of solving hard problems the Wayland maintainers are acting like you're stupid to want to have the features solving the hard problems enables.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    I think Wayland is about as feature complete as it's gonna get at this point. Mutter, Kwin are still working on adding features to support workflows that relied on the loosey-goosey nature of Xorg. Like Xorg never had "support" for global hotkeys or screen sharing. It's just that programs were allowed access to all inputs and the screen buffer. Designing a system where only some programs are allowed to do that isn't trivial.
    - rbanffy 6y ago
      That's more or less why I sometimes log in under X instead of Wayland - I can't run Fontforge under Wayland (not sure why and I don't have the bandwidth do dig deeper). Luckily, the machine behaves the same way.
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  I don't understand why it's so important to have multiple broken implementations before having 1 working implementation. Especially in open source where there's no monopoly risk. Diversity is great but equality in failure is not helpful.
bjourne 6y ago
> Because then you end up with something like X11, which we already have. X11 is a protocol. What you mean is that we end up with something like Xorg, an implementation of X11. Which is still incorrect because a major design goal of Wayland is to move as much logic as possible from the server to the client.
- rbanffy 6y ago
  > a major design goal of Wayland is to move as much logic as possible from the server to the client. I wonder how long it'll take to have a Wayland server running on the AT&T Blit...

by R0b0t1 6y ago

rbanffy 6y ago

> which we already have. It'd still solve a lot of issues that X can't.

Spivak 6y ago

Because the Xorg mono-culture was bad. There was no ability to write other X11 display servers from the spec alone. You either did what Xorg did bug for bug or apps broke. By having many different implementations all speaking a common protocol you make it harder to calcify the behaviors of any one implementation and ensure that the spec is what apps code against. People seem to like that we have many browser implementations but when it comes to display servers it seems like they want Chrome to rule them all.

R0b0t1 6y ago
That's fine, I know. But acting like Wayland is feature complete when it obviously isn't is pretty ridiculous. Instead of solving hard problems the Wayland maintainers are acting like you're stupid to want to have the features solving the hard problems enables.
- Spivak 6y ago
  I think Wayland is about as feature complete as it's gonna get at this point. Mutter, Kwin are still working on adding features to support workflows that relied on the loosey-goosey nature of Xorg. Like Xorg never had "support" for global hotkeys or screen sharing. It's just that programs were allowed access to all inputs and the screen buffer. Designing a system where only some programs are allowed to do that isn't trivial.
  - rbanffy 6y ago
    That's more or less why I sometimes log in under X instead of Wayland - I can't run Fontforge under Wayland (not sure why and I don't have the bandwidth do dig deeper). Luckily, the machine behaves the same way.
alisonkisk 6y ago
I don't understand why it's so important to have multiple broken implementations before having 1 working implementation. Especially in open source where there's no monopoly risk. Diversity is great but equality in failure is not helpful.

bjourne 6y ago

> Because then you end up with something like X11, which we already have. X11 is a protocol. What you mean is that we end up with something like Xorg, an implementation of X11. Which is still incorrect because a major design goal of Wayland is to move as much logic as possible from the server to the client.

rbanffy 6y ago
> a major design goal of Wayland is to move as much logic as possible from the server to the client. I wonder how long it'll take to have a Wayland server running on the AT&T Blit...