4 ms·
plan9's rio is very unixy, and quite "successful" at what it does.
by throwaway64 14y ago
plan9's rio is very unixy, and quite "successful" at what it does.
- jlgreco 14y agoI was thinking more along the lines of: do Windows or Mac OSX do it in a more unix-y way than X? When it comes to "GUI stuff" I am a consumer. I don't care about better software engineering practices in my windowing system unless that means the experience will be better for me. So far I am not seeing that offered by Wayland, nor am I seeing any real evidence that better engineering would or could offer me a better experience. If this were still 1995 and battling X was still something I did then I'd be less inclined to ask for evidence, but these days X is simply something I only know that I use because it used to be a hassle. I haven't had to know about it for years, which I think is the way Windows and OSX work for their users.
- Tuna-Fish 14y agoThe advantages of a more unixy display system are all indirect. Right now, working on that side is pretty arcane. Wayland will make it much simpler, so that cool ideas and new innovations will get turned into reality faster. The only direct advantage Wayland will bring is a flicker-free and tear-free desktop.
- jlgreco 14y agoI'm under the impression that flicker-free/tear-free are features that KVM brings to Wayland and that X already has if you use KVM drivers. Is that not the case?
- rwmj 14y ago"tear free" and "flicker free" constantly come up in discussion of Wayland. My X desktop does not tear or flicker. I've in fact not seen an X desktop doing either of these things.
- ori_b 14y agoRight. And if your X desktop did do it, then so would Wayland. Both use more or less the same acceleration infrastructure.