3 ms·
I don't understand what you mean. You can still continue using X if that's what you want, people deciding to spend their time developing Wayland doesn't somehow
by cycloptic 6y ago
I don't understand what you mean. You can still continue using X if that's what you want, people deciding to spend their time developing Wayland doesn't somehow break X or make it worse.
Also just FYI, it seems x.org has merged with freedesktop.org so they are mostly equivalent at this point, being run by the same group of people.
- jude- 6y agoI'm assuming that X.org will go unmaintained after a time, which is fine. But if that means I can't get a usable X server running later on, I wouldn't mind taking a crack at adding a Wayland extension that implemented the X11 protocol.
- cycloptic 6y agoIt's not clear what that would solve, XWayland mostly fulfills that role already. It can't run window managers, but you wouldn't really get that everywhere from adding another Wayland extension either -- doing that would require a lot of additional code and the GNOME and KDE implementations wouldn't want that anyway because they have their own built in window managers. So maybe you could get a hacked up version of Weston that can run X window managers, but why bother dealing with maintaining that instead of just maintaining X? It's unlikely the X server will stop working as long as you have a GPU that supports GL or Vulkan, the glamor/modesetting driver should continue to work there.
- jude- 6y agoIn the event that I do need to use something that is Wayland-only, I'd like to have the ability to run it without breaking everything else.
- cycloptic 6y agoI don't know of any significant applications that are Wayland only. If that ever happened, someone could just make a really simple Wayland server that does the reverse of XWayland.