If I have a kiosk terminal, why would I want the overhead of, say, screensharing? Also, isn't this the point of libraries, so that you only have to implement stuff once, and you can reuse it in different projects? Like you can build on top of wlroots just fine.

> The proper thing Wayland should've done is waited until Wayland had reached feature parity with X

How on Earth would you expect a fundamental protocol to be developed behind closed doors?! Wtf even.

▲

ethin 5 days ago | parent [-]

> If I have a kiosk terminal, why would I want the overhead of, say, screensharing? Also, isn't this the point of libraries, so that you only have to implement stuff once, and you can reuse it in different projects? Like you can build on top of wlroots just fine.

Yeah but again this fragments the ecosystem massively. If people really wanted flexibility they could've just made it a configure option or something equivalent?

> How on Earth would you expect a fundamental protocol to be developed behind closed doors?! Wtf even.

Your making a pretty big assumption here, aren't you? I never said it had to be developed behind closed doors. It's the "lets just obsolete X11 even though Wayland can't even replicate a quarter of it's functionality right now now now because of security security security" that irritates me. If they had worked on Wayland and obsoleted it once they had reached feature parity, that would be releasing it to the world. Then they would've had far less friction and the transition would've been a lot smoother. Would it have delayed Wayland by maybe a decade? Sure, but I see little issue with that. IMO that probably would've made Wayland even better.

▲

gf000 5 days ago | parent [-]

Who is the supposed agent mastermind singlehandedly developing Wayland and deprecating X11? You do realize there are multiple people working (having worked) on both in their free time and each have agency and their own incentives. Separate people have had enough of maintaining X, while another group of people enjoyed working on Wayland. Some indeed moved from one to another but there were no coordinated attempt at hijacking the Linux graphic stack or whatever..

▲

kasabali 5 days ago | parent [-]

So you tell us Freedesktop.org people

1. Claiming XFree86 evil

2. Forking it as X.org

3. Shortly after all distros finished switching to X.org, declaring it obsolete and announcing wayland

4. stopping any major development on X.org immediately even though it's was the one and only option at the time

5. and channeling all development resources (not only on the display server, but also downstream users like toolkits, DEs etc.) to rewrite their code for a protocol that wasn't even gonna be usable until a 10+ years later

6. Depraving Linux desktop users from 10-15 years of improvements and making Linux graphis stack stuck in 2000s

wasn't hijacking the Linux graphic stack?

I mean had Steve Balmer wanted to sabotage Linux in desktop he couldn't do better

	▲	tuna74 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		If you want to continue working on Xorg you can. You could have done that 10 years ago as well.
	▲	4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]