X did a great job for decades but it’s old, it never was designed for modern day requirements, let it retire gracefully instead of dumping on it’s replacement, maybe?
I understand there are some apps that still require X, those at some point will be / should be / have to be updated, but I don’t see that as a reason not to want to move forward to something better
Wayland is 18 years old. From 2015 on people whose entire computer use was a browser and a terminal on their single screen laptop with intel integrated GPU were telling everyone else they needed to change over because X was already practically dead and wayland was ready for prime time.
Meanwhile even on the latest and greatest everything wayland still has at that point many problems, many limitations, and is from the perspective of many users not better in any way whatsoever and in many ways worse. Continue this for 11 years. By the time everything is ready for prime time you’ve already primed people to reject and dislike you.
The issue with wayland is that both the process and the base mechanisms had significqnt flaws, that made it take a long time to get things working. In all fairness, the core team uad a valiant effort for a dwcade, hampered by unresponsive complainers, and late-to-the-party suggestions.
Fyi: I am an early WL adopter, but not on any of the major DEs.
Large Wayland projects like KDE and Gnome that are considered member projects of Wayland had the ability to NACK new wayland protocols and proposals. This has historically been abused by a lot of a different projects, in many instamces Gnome because they didn’t want to implement things. A lot of wayland proposals were unnecessarily delayed because of this. The bylaws of how wayland projects are allowed to NACK things has since changed to make it so a single project cannot needlessly block protocols but this was only implemented in the past few years iirc so for a long time this happened. Thats a massive contributor to why wayland development takes so long.
The comainers were nvidia, when they didn’t participate in the early anni g, and then cam in late trying to push a rewrite to the memory sharing model.
Was that just my fantasy, or did other people have the same drean? I did mention that I was an early adotper. Maybe I should have clarified that I never went back.
Listen, no matter your opinion on wayland, you can admit that some technical decisions made were not optimal.
Oh I’m sure there was valid critique, but at the time it was completely hidden under a pile of made-up conspiracy bullshit about red hat being the devil or so, or plain wrong assertions like “it’s monolithic” or “it forces you to use binary logging”.
If the debate would have been about technical merits, maybe one of the other init systems would have won by being slightly better, but systemd’s detractors prevented that really well by making the public “debate” a compete farce.
Wayland has to overcome more real problems than systemd (because X11 was a giant monolith of compatibility hacks that everybody used, as opposed to a hundred piles of messy shell scripts that was SYSV init). But it has no alternatives that could possibly have more technical merit; I can’t even remember the thing Ubuntu announced for a hot minute.
What’s it with the Wayland hate?
X did a great job for decades but it’s old, it never was designed for modern day requirements, let it retire gracefully instead of dumping on it’s replacement, maybe?
I understand there are some apps that still require X, those at some point will be / should be / have to be updated, but I don’t see that as a reason not to want to move forward to something better
Wayland is 18 years old. From 2015 on people whose entire computer use was a browser and a terminal on their single screen laptop with intel integrated GPU were telling everyone else they needed to change over because X was already practically dead and wayland was ready for prime time.
Meanwhile even on the latest and greatest everything wayland still has at that point many problems, many limitations, and is from the perspective of many users not better in any way whatsoever and in many ways worse. Continue this for 11 years. By the time everything is ready for prime time you’ve already primed people to reject and dislike you.
The issue with wayland is that both the process and the base mechanisms had significqnt flaws, that made it take a long time to get things working. In all fairness, the core team uad a valiant effort for a dwcade, hampered by unresponsive complainers, and late-to-the-party suggestions.
Fyi: I am an early WL adopter, but not on any of the major DEs.
How outside of your fantasies did people bitching actually slow down devs introducing features that people should have known were needed in 2008?
Large Wayland projects like KDE and Gnome that are considered member projects of Wayland had the ability to NACK new wayland protocols and proposals. This has historically been abused by a lot of a different projects, in many instamces Gnome because they didn’t want to implement things. A lot of wayland proposals were unnecessarily delayed because of this. The bylaws of how wayland projects are allowed to NACK things has since changed to make it so a single project cannot needlessly block protocols but this was only implemented in the past few years iirc so for a long time this happened. Thats a massive contributor to why wayland development takes so long.
I think you have the wrong tone.
The comainers were nvidia, when they didn’t participate in the early anni g, and then cam in late trying to push a rewrite to the memory sharing model.
Was that just my fantasy, or did other people have the same drean? I did mention that I was an early adotper. Maybe I should have clarified that I never went back.
Listen, no matter your opinion on wayland, you can admit that some technical decisions made were not optimal.
Some people just can’t find a better hill to die on it seems.
Maybe also some undead refugees from the “systemd hate” hill or something.
It’s not like anyone had legit critique which online weirdos reframe as irrational
Oh I’m sure there was valid critique, but at the time it was completely hidden under a pile of made-up conspiracy bullshit about red hat being the devil or so, or plain wrong assertions like “it’s monolithic” or “it forces you to use binary logging”.
If the debate would have been about technical merits, maybe one of the other init systems would have won by being slightly better, but systemd’s detractors prevented that really well by making the public “debate” a compete farce.
Wayland has to overcome more real problems than systemd (because X11 was a giant monolith of compatibility hacks that everybody used, as opposed to a hundred piles of messy shell scripts that was SYSV init). But it has no alternatives that could possibly have more technical merit; I can’t even remember the thing Ubuntu announced for a hot minute.