4 ms·
It's not because it's just a different alternative. The problem is that X11 is not pushing the graphics stack forward while at the same time dragging down on pr
by dietr1ch 2y ago
It's not because it's just a different alternative. The problem is that X11 is not pushing the graphics stack forward while at the same time dragging down on projects that feel they need to support it because some users don't want to let go of X11.
How long until running software designed in 1987 is reserved for retro-computing? The graphics stack has changed way too much since then.
(damn, the X protocol v11 is even older than I thought, but I guess Wikipedia's entry is not considering minor revisions to X11)
---
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System
- Ferret7446 2y agoThe graphics stack doesn't need to be pushed forward for, what?, 99% of computing use cases? 99.9%? What graphics stack pushing forward is needed to write documents, spreadsheets, view charts, write code, edit video/images, do data analysis, etc?
- jraph 2y agoI wouldn't says "push forward the graphic stack" as much as fitting current hardware and architectures that are already there, and being able to apply the insight gathered on X all these years. Writing code and doing spreadsheet was already possible on the Atari ST but you wouldn't use its software stack today.
- dietr1ch 2y ago> The graphics stack doesn't need to be pushed forward for Hardware evolves and software should either grab its magic ball and plan for that, or adapt to changes to avoid dragging hardware evolution back.