4 ms·
Well, yes. As you say: Q: if they had that much experience why they chose to structure wayland in a way that's such PITA to write for ? A: Because they were r
by yjftsjthsd-h 1y ago
Well, yes. As you say:
Q: if they had that much experience why they chose to structure wayland in a way that's such PITA to write for ?
A: Because they were reacting to Xorg, so they wrote the exact opposite of that.
And for bonus points, because one of the problems they wanted to solve was "Xorg is hard to maintain", they made sure that the replacement was much much easier to maintain and develop... for them. Not for application devs, not for users, but for the folks making wayland, I have no doubt it's very well streamlined and easy to work on.
- flohofwoe 1y ago> they made sure that the replacement was much much easier to maintain and develop... for them Tbh, if that were the case I would expect much faster progress.
- suby 1y agoThe reason Wayland progress is slow is not technical. We have a coordination problem, people have differing priorities and views on what should be allowed. There are people opposed to things like a allowing windows to specify their own bounds, and unless all the stakeholders agree to implement such protocols in their respective projects, the ecosystem will remain fragmented. Multiply this against every feature that people want.