3 ms·

This is also how the web works, or many other things where you have a standards venue and multiple implementations that contribute to and validate the standard.

by sho_hn 3y ago

This is also how the web works, or many other things where you have a standards venue and multiple implementations that contribute to and validate the standard. There may be pros and cons, but I think overall it's proven to be a healthy way of running an ecosystem. It's also not top-down, either. The Wayland governance model consists of voting members from the compositor authors, and for protocols to enter the wp or xdg namespaces, there must be multiple open source implementations. That means that by the time the protocol is official, at least first implementations already exist. It's not moving that slowly, overall. Also, the Wayland model doesn't preclude compositors sharing as much of their code as they want. "Implement it ones and several projects benefit" also happens in the Wayland world, for example there are multiple compositors built on libraries like wlroots. Xorg wasn't the only X11 implementations either. Fragmentation in the X Windows space did reduce over time as the open source impl sprinted and ahead and won out over everyone else by miles, but it did exist for many years. Most people are only familiar with an X11 space that already had 25 years of maturing and consolidation on it.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
> This is also how the web works, or many other things where you have a standards venue and multiple implementations that contribute to and validate the standard. There may be pros and cons, but I think overall it's proven to be a healthy way of running an ecosystem. The web only really has 3 engines (gecko/webkit/blink), and they still vary enough that it causes problems. > Also, the Wayland model doesn't preclude compositors sharing as much of their code as they want. "Implement it ones and several projects benefit" also happens in the Wayland world, for example there are multiple compositors built on libraries like wlroots. Yeah, I used to have great hopes for wlroots uniting basically everything except KDE and GNOME and mostly solving the fragmentation. Then I found some cool new compositor that I wanted to try, and it ran alright so I went to configure it to my keyboard layout (I could kind of get by on QWERTY to test that it ran but I'm not gonna live like that), and hey wlroots implements keyboard configuration so it should be easy right? Yeah, so it turns out wlroots provides the ability to support kb layouts, but every compositor has to actually wire up that code and this one didn't. And that's the most recent time I gave up on wayland. > Xorg wasn't the only X11 implementations either. Fragmentation in the X Windows space did reduce over time as the open source impl sprinted and ahead and won out over everyone else by miles, but it did exist for many years. Agreed; I've actually run into other X servers that were worse and I'm glad Xorg won (which is unusual; usually I prefer diverse implementations, but it turns out I prefer one working implementation). > Most people are only familiar with an X11 space that already had 25 years of maturing and consolidation on it. X is 39 years old[1]. Wayland is 14 years old[0]. If it's going to take another 11 years for Wayland to catch up I'm going to just wait for Arcan or whatever replaces Wayland. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayland_(protocol) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayland_(protocol) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System

by sho_hn 3y ago

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago

> This is also how the web works, or many other things where you have a standards venue and multiple implementations that contribute to and validate the standard. There may be pros and cons, but I think overall it's proven to be a healthy way of running an ecosystem. The web only really has 3 engines (gecko/webkit/blink), and they still vary enough that it causes problems. > Also, the Wayland model doesn't preclude compositors sharing as much of their code as they want. "Implement it ones and several projects benefit" also happens in the Wayland world, for example there are multiple compositors built on libraries like wlroots. Yeah, I used to have great hopes for wlroots uniting basically everything except KDE and GNOME and mostly solving the fragmentation. Then I found some cool new compositor that I wanted to try, and it ran alright so I went to configure it to my keyboard layout (I could kind of get by on QWERTY to test that it ran but I'm not gonna live like that), and hey wlroots implements keyboard configuration so it should be easy right? Yeah, so it turns out wlroots provides the ability to support kb layouts, but every compositor has to actually wire up that code and this one didn't. And that's the most recent time I gave up on wayland. > Xorg wasn't the only X11 implementations either. Fragmentation in the X Windows space did reduce over time as the open source impl sprinted and ahead and won out over everyone else by miles, but it did exist for many years. Agreed; I've actually run into other X servers that were worse and I'm glad Xorg won (which is unusual; usually I prefer diverse implementations, but it turns out I prefer one working implementation). > Most people are only familiar with an X11 space that already had 25 years of maturing and consolidation on it. X is 39 years old[1]. Wayland is 14 years old[0]. If it's going to take another 11 years for Wayland to catch up I'm going to just wait for Arcan or whatever replaces Wayland. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayland_(protocol) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayland_(protocol) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System