4 ms·

Shifting to Wayland hasn't been incoming since the project never meant to support everything X did. It follows directly that it never could, if you care about s

by brnt 3y ago

Shifting to Wayland hasn't been incoming since the project never meant to support everything X did. It follows directly that it never could, if you care about supporting all your users and all their uses.

dathinab 3y ago
I'm not sure how to properly response to your comment without it sounding mean because it's pretty much nonsense. Wayland from the beginning was meant to replace X and this was pushed from a lot of sides, including some of the core developers of X at that point in time. So it had been very clear, from the get to go, that X will go and be gone sooner or later. That was clear like 10 years or so ago! Anything wayland didn't support pretty much falls into one of three categories: - its a security issue, so it was meant to be removed and would have been removed from X if that would have been viable - it's somewhat broken and not really properly supported by X either with there being alternative better working approaches (e.g. the whole network transparency thing) - it's not yet supported by wayland, but wayland is designed with extensibility in mind and there is since years a standard group which is standardizing additional wayland protocols and basically stating what any implementation should support. By now the large majority of gaps are filled and it has become often more a question of weather or not the wayland implementation you use has implemented it yet then weather it's supported per-se. Most times that's not too much of an issues but if you are on a distribution which mainly ships outdated software versions or on some niche mostly hobby project wayland implementations that can be an issue. There are some minor exceptions to that 3 categories (e.g. wrt. certain front rendering things) but they in the larger picture don't matter and normal have alternatives in the 3rd category. > if you care about supporting all your users and all their uses. No one does support all users. Or at least no one who doesn't hypocritically claims things they can't long term commit too does. You always should support the majority of users. If you have contributing users with a bias for them. But going from that to all isn't possible without stopping any changes and outside of some (but not even all) bug fixes stopping development. But that would kill your software sooner or later. Times change and resources are limited. What was acceptable security wise 20 years ago today can land you in prison for negligence (well legal troubles then prison, it's a metaphor). Similar requirements change, In the past supporting keyboard is enough, then mouse today controllers and drawing pans and in at most 20 years proper touch support is essential. This means your codebase needs to be changeable, maintainable and secure enough for the resources the maintainers have available. For X non of this was the case and some of the problems where of fundamental architectural nature. So that X needs to die was known even before wayland was a think. I mean if I buy a new car I make it fit my current and coming requirements and if just because it means I can't help some friend of mine with moving something as much as I could before doesn't mean it's not a replacement, because in the end what matter the most is what the person who pays for the car and maintains it needs, not what a friend who doesn't contribute anything to it would prefer it to be.
- brnt 3y ago
  > I'm not sure how to properly response to your comment without it sounding mean because it's pretty much nonsense You could try examining why you might be wrong before you post walls of silly excuses.
  - dathinab 3y ago
    > silly excuses. Your argument is misleading using the pretense of using logical deduction to argue that something that isn't 100% backward compatible can't be expected to replace something else. Seems more like a silly excuse to me as this argument is not based at all in reality but pure ideological delusion. Something I assume you know very well as people commenting on HN normally have a bit of experience with software development/administration.
    - brnt 3y ago
      I assume that what you write is pure projection.
- arp242 3y ago
  The previous poster didn't say "Wayland wasn't meant to replace X", they said "Wayland was never meant to support everything X did". These are very different things. You're responding to something that was never claimed. "It's nonsense that Wayland doesn't support everything X11 did" and "Wayland doesn't support this for these reasons" is pretty contradictory.
- hulitu 3y ago
  > So it had been very clear, from the get to go, that X will go and be gone sooner or later. It was more like a rant that X sucks and some people are building the best thing since sliced bread. The only thing that i noticed is that, since around one year ago, they are pronoting it as as finished product, while some people complain that basic things are still not implemented.
- hulitu 3y ago
  > You always should support the majority of users. The majority of users is using X windows.

by brnt 3y ago

dathinab 3y ago

I'm not sure how to properly response to your comment without it sounding mean because it's pretty much nonsense. Wayland from the beginning was meant to replace X and this was pushed from a lot of sides, including some of the core developers of X at that point in time. So it had been very clear, from the get to go, that X will go and be gone sooner or later. That was clear like 10 years or so ago! Anything wayland didn't support pretty much falls into one of three categories: - its a security issue, so it was meant to be removed and would have been removed from X if that would have been viable - it's somewhat broken and not really properly supported by X either with there being alternative better working approaches (e.g. the whole network transparency thing) - it's not yet supported by wayland, but wayland is designed with extensibility in mind and there is since years a standard group which is standardizing additional wayland protocols and basically stating what any implementation should support. By now the large majority of gaps are filled and it has become often more a question of weather or not the wayland implementation you use has implemented it yet then weather it's supported per-se. Most times that's not too much of an issues but if you are on a distribution which mainly ships outdated software versions or on some niche mostly hobby project wayland implementations that can be an issue. There are some minor exceptions to that 3 categories (e.g. wrt. certain front rendering things) but they in the larger picture don't matter and normal have alternatives in the 3rd category. > if you care about supporting all your users and all their uses. No one does support all users. Or at least no one who doesn't hypocritically claims things they can't long term commit too does. You always should support the majority of users. If you have contributing users with a bias for them. But going from that to all isn't possible without stopping any changes and outside of some (but not even all) bug fixes stopping development. But that would kill your software sooner or later. Times change and resources are limited. What was acceptable security wise 20 years ago today can land you in prison for negligence (well legal troubles then prison, it's a metaphor). Similar requirements change, In the past supporting keyboard is enough, then mouse today controllers and drawing pans and in at most 20 years proper touch support is essential. This means your codebase needs to be changeable, maintainable and secure enough for the resources the maintainers have available. For X non of this was the case and some of the problems where of fundamental architectural nature. So that X needs to die was known even before wayland was a think. I mean if I buy a new car I make it fit my current and coming requirements and if just because it means I can't help some friend of mine with moving something as much as I could before doesn't mean it's not a replacement, because in the end what matter the most is what the person who pays for the car and maintains it needs, not what a friend who doesn't contribute anything to it would prefer it to be.

brnt 3y ago
> I'm not sure how to properly response to your comment without it sounding mean because it's pretty much nonsense You could try examining why you might be wrong before you post walls of silly excuses.
- dathinab 3y ago
  > silly excuses. Your argument is misleading using the pretense of using logical deduction to argue that something that isn't 100% backward compatible can't be expected to replace something else. Seems more like a silly excuse to me as this argument is not based at all in reality but pure ideological delusion. Something I assume you know very well as people commenting on HN normally have a bit of experience with software development/administration.
  - brnt 3y ago
    I assume that what you write is pure projection.
arp242 3y ago
The previous poster didn't say "Wayland wasn't meant to replace X", they said "Wayland was never meant to support everything X did". These are very different things. You're responding to something that was never claimed. "It's nonsense that Wayland doesn't support everything X11 did" and "Wayland doesn't support this for these reasons" is pretty contradictory.
hulitu 3y ago
> So it had been very clear, from the get to go, that X will go and be gone sooner or later. It was more like a rant that X sucks and some people are building the best thing since sliced bread. The only thing that i noticed is that, since around one year ago, they are pronoting it as as finished product, while some people complain that basic things are still not implemented.
hulitu 3y ago
> You always should support the majority of users. The majority of users is using X windows.