3 ms·
I'm afraid it's too easy to characterize things as too hard and expect people to believe it. Protocols can be versioned, there's no reason Xorg can't become mo
by zlg_codes 3y ago
I'm afraid it's too easy to characterize things as too hard and expect people to believe it.
Protocols can be versioned, there's no reason Xorg can't become more of a compositor itself.
I'd like to see someone describe ame compare building simple and medium complexity GUIs in both Xorg and Wayland. Maybe I'll do it myself if there's some interest or ideas for test targets.
- BadBadJellyBean 3y agoHow is rewriting Xorg to be very different from what it is now much different from writing Wayland from scratch? If you make it more like wayland it will break probably as much stuff. And rewriting can be harder than starting from a blank slate. Creating Wayland made it possible to do some very radical changes. When rewriting software you are much more careful to not break anything. Apart from that the discussion is pretty much settled. Most distros and major desktop environments have commited to wayland. You'd have to have a very compelling argument to move things back to Xorg.
- zlg_codes 3y agoWho decided the discussion was settled? That's needlessly dismissive. Just because Wayland devs used to work on Xorg and gave up? That's their decision, it doesn't dictate mine. Most things can be improved and adapted, that is especially true of software. I'm not convinced by what others are doing.