4 ms·

I keep hearing this and yet I keep being able to use X just fine.

by jrm4 4y ago

sph 4y ago
I can use DOS just fine, but nobody ain't maintaining it.
- jrm4 4y ago
  Great. If X is like that that's an even better argument for "who cares about Wayland."
  - imtringued 4y ago
    I am currently dependent on Xvfb and xdolib and frankly I don't care. Adding options doesn't take them away
    - jrm4 4y ago
      Not when those options are designed to crowd out the old thing, which is what I believe the strategy from Red Hat et al is.
- brnt 4y ago
  Freedos is maintained.
  - sph 4y ago
    By that metric, so is Xwayland. (I knew someone would have mentioned the modern DOS emulation layers and missed the point.)
    - brnt 4y ago
      But XWayland does nothing in the situation of a Wayland compositor not working for a user. It's just for X11 application compat, while the problems discussed here seem not that.
thrillgore 4y ago
If anything, Wayland has gotten XOrg and other DEs to fix a lot of X11's shortcomings for general use. Gone are the days of having to edit xorg.conf and pray it doesn't brick your monitor.
- majewsky 4y ago
  Wayland and "an Xorg user experience that's not a disaster" came from roughly the same developers because of the same needs. Generally lots of stuff was moved out of Xorg into places where it fits better, into the Linux kernel (modesetting!), into Mesa, into application frameworks. This development is what made Wayland possible in the first place. By making large parts of Xorg obsolete, you enable a solution that trims out all the old garbage that nobody realistically needs anymore and hence nobody wants to maintain anymore.
  - jrm4 4y ago
    See, all of that makes a lot of sense. What doesn't make sense to me is "Hey, so decades of work has gone into Window Managers and Desktop Environments. How will we preserve those going forward with this?" And the answer appears to have been "Eh, we wont. Maybe later? They can just rewrite them all or something." Madness.
    - majewsky 4y ago
      Because the developers of window managers and desktop environments are precisely the people that benefit from foregoing backwards compatibility and getting rid of all the duct tape and zip ties that hold the modern X stack together. It is true that a duct-taped thing can work very well after sufficient iterations, but you absolutely don't want to be maintaining it.

I keep hearing this and yet I keep being able to use X just fine.

by jrm4 4y ago

I keep hearing this and yet I keep being able to use X just fine.

sph 4y ago

I can use DOS just fine, but nobody ain't maintaining it.

jrm4 4y ago
Great. If X is like that that's an even better argument for "who cares about Wayland."
- imtringued 4y ago
  I am currently dependent on Xvfb and xdolib and frankly I don't care. Adding options doesn't take them away
  - jrm4 4y ago
    Not when those options are designed to crowd out the old thing, which is what I believe the strategy from Red Hat et al is.
brnt 4y ago
Freedos is maintained.
- sph 4y ago
  By that metric, so is Xwayland. (I knew someone would have mentioned the modern DOS emulation layers and missed the point.)
  - brnt 4y ago
    But XWayland does nothing in the situation of a Wayland compositor not working for a user. It's just for X11 application compat, while the problems discussed here seem not that.

thrillgore 4y ago

If anything, Wayland has gotten XOrg and other DEs to fix a lot of X11's shortcomings for general use. Gone are the days of having to edit xorg.conf and pray it doesn't brick your monitor.

majewsky 4y ago
Wayland and "an Xorg user experience that's not a disaster" came from roughly the same developers because of the same needs. Generally lots of stuff was moved out of Xorg into places where it fits better, into the Linux kernel (modesetting!), into Mesa, into application frameworks. This development is what made Wayland possible in the first place. By making large parts of Xorg obsolete, you enable a solution that trims out all the old garbage that nobody realistically needs anymore and hence nobody wants to maintain anymore.
- jrm4 4y ago
  See, all of that makes a lot of sense. What doesn't make sense to me is "Hey, so decades of work has gone into Window Managers and Desktop Environments. How will we preserve those going forward with this?" And the answer appears to have been "Eh, we wont. Maybe later? They can just rewrite them all or something." Madness.
  - majewsky 4y ago
    Because the developers of window managers and desktop environments are precisely the people that benefit from foregoing backwards compatibility and getting rid of all the duct tape and zip ties that hold the modern X stack together. It is true that a duct-taped thing can work very well after sufficient iterations, but you absolutely don't want to be maintaining it.