4 ms·

I agree the end result could very well be better. But, I’d also say it could very well be worse. As a result, it’s risky, and therefore ambitious rather than a

• selfhoster11 5y ago
  Perhaps, but we still have the old thing to fall back on for a little while if the new thing is really that bad. This will give it enough time to iron out the bugs. For example, Linux is in the middle of switching out the display server for something more modern, but not everyone has moved on because the new display server is still missing features and interoperability that the old one had. Everyone will eventually move on from the old one, but it's not like it's automatically overshadowed just because there's a new thing.
  • ironmagma 5y ago
    I would say Wayland vs X11 is a great example of how a rewrite can go wrong. In theory, Wayland should be better because it's easier to reason about and more restricted, but in practice, X11 being "dumb" (anything goes) is probably what led to its mass adoption to begin with. This mismatch in expectations has led to a falloff of support in what would otherwise be a thriving open source project. Several of our general purpose platforms that have mass appeal (TTYs, the telephone systems, the Internet, FM radio, heck, even Fax) are built on unopinionated, stupid pipes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Wayland is very much not a dumb pipe. As a result, it's risky in my book.