3 ms·
> Wayland adoption should have been predicated on a near universal superiority in all input and display requirements. Totally agree. The people saying "Waylan
by BrenBarn 2y ago
> Wayland adoption should have been predicated on a near universal superiority in all input and display requirements.
Totally agree. The people saying "Wayland is a protocol" miss the point. Wayland is a protocol, but Wayland adoption means implementing stuff that uses that protocol, and then pushing it onto users.
Measure twice, cut once. Look before you leap. All that kind of thing. Get it working FIRST, then release it.
- bluGill 2y agoYou have to releaseethings like this in parts because it needs too many external people to do things to make it useful. Managing those parts is something nobody has figured out and so people live you end up using it before it is ready for your use and then complaining.
- BrenBarn 2y agoWhen I say "release" I mean "release to users". You can release stuff to other developers, no problem. But it should all come with large warnings saying "This is not for daily use". The failure is when distros like Fedora start not only shipping it, but then saying they're going to drop the working alternative before Wayland is actually ready to do everything that X does. (Also, I don't use Wayland. I mean I tried it out but don't see any real benefit so I don't use it regularly.)
- hulitu 2y ago> You have to releaseethings like this in parts because it needs too many external people to do things to make it useful. 30 years ago X came with a server and some clients. Why it is so hard to do this, for wayland, today ?
- account42 2y agoThis would be best solved by maintaining support for old protocols instead of reinventing the wheel. There is no chicken/egg problem when you have proper backwards compatibility.