4 ms·
Xorg was the stagnant monoculture though, and you were complaining about an alternative to it because it does not suit you exactly.
by throwawaylinux 4y ago
Xorg was the stagnant monoculture though, and you were complaining about an alternative to it because it does not suit you exactly.
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y agoXorg resulted in a stagnant monoculture in the display server itself, but allowed arbitrary stuff to build on top. If wayland results in a monoculture of desktop environments, that will be a regression. On the other hand, yes; if wayland results in a healthy ecosystem of compositors that are actually as functional as Xorg was (because by all accounts that should be a low bar, right?) then we will come out far ahead.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago> Xorg [...] allowed arbitrary stuff to build on top. Same as wayland. > If wayland results in a monoculture of desktop environments, that will be a regression. It isn't, because you have everything that's ported to Wayland _and_ everything that's ported to X11. So it's the opposite of a monoculture.
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago>> Xorg [...] allowed arbitrary stuff to build on top. > Same as wayland. No, because Wayland puts everything on the compositor. X11 let me run the same screenshot tool on GNOME, KDE, and dwm. In wayland, the only way to support GNOME, KDE, and sway is to add multiple backends. In X11, window managers and compositors were interchangeable and orthogonal; in Wayland, the "window manager" is subsumed into the compositor (now mandatory), which is the display server. I really like keynav. AFAICT, implementing an equivalent in Wayland requires integration into each compositor. There's still a monolith, but it got moved up the stack to a place where it prevents piecemeal environments.
- throwawaylinux 4y agoI don't see anything you wrote that means you can't build arbitrary stuff on top of Wayland.